ASTRO BOY

US, 2009, 94 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Freddie Highmore, Nicolas Cage, Samuel L. Jackson, Kristen Bell, Charlize Theron, Donald Sutherland, Bill Nighy, Matt Lucas, Eugene Levy, Nathan Lane, Madeleine Carroll.
Directed by David Bowers.

Astro Boy comes from the 1960s, an early Manga comic book character which inspired the Anime films from Japan and the versions of the Manga books. Now Astro Boy stars in an American film.

In the future, a mountain (looking like Mt Fuji) has risen into space from the devastated earth and a new civilisation is flourishing. There is much scientific research going on, especially with Dr Elefun and Dr Temna. However, as so often, a jingoistic president is more interested in developments in negative energy rather than positive (repeating that he is running for election). When an experiment goes destructively wrong, Dr Temna's young son is trapped and killed. However, the father constructs a robot just like his son – who becomes known as Astro Boy.

Astro Boy's adventures, after he discovers he is only a robot, take him back to earth where he finds a group of vagrant children in a circus – where he is made to fight all kinds of powerful robots to entertain the crowds. Meantime, the president is hell-bent on controlling the so-called Peacemaker, a giant robot whose red destructive power core overwhelms the blue positive core. Can Astro Boy remedy this?

The raging President finds himself inside The Peacemaker, which makes him more powerful. Which all leads up to a final confrontation and Astro Boy saves the world. What else!

Entertaining, differently drawn, with nods to the Japanese origins of the characters, the film has some excellent and pleasing voice talent. Freddie Highmore is Astro Boy. Donald Sutherland is a standout, both comically and seriously as the president. Nicholas Cage is the father. Bill Nighy is Dr Elefun (a rotund, small man which makes the thin Bill Nighy's voice seem a bit incongruous for those who are aware of him) and Nathan Lane is the circus master.

It should keep adults and children nicely amused.

1.The origins of Astro Boy in Japan? Comics, television series? The antecedents for this American version?

2.The eastern and Asian traditions blending with western and American traditions? How well did they blend?

3.The style of animation, the figures, the visuals of the planet, Metro City? Action sequences? The score?

4.The quality of the voice cast, giving drama to the rather blander-looking characters and the situations?

5.The situation, Earth and the disasters, life in Metro City?

6.The background of science, Doctor Tenma, Doctor Elefun? Their work, creating the character? The Peacemaker? Capacity for peace? The role of the president, wanting the Peacemaker to be a weapon? The blue and the red power? Doctor Tenma’s son and his hiding, his being caught?

7.Astro Boy, his going into the laboratory, the danger of the experiment, caught behind the glass, his death? His father’s grief? The DNA, rebuilding him as a robot? In the image of his son? Voice, look, expression? But not human? Doctor Tenma and his love for Astro Boy? The comparisons, Doctor Tenma’s rejecting of Astro Boy?

8.The character of the president, his concern about the elections, the Peacemaker to be a weapon, callous attitudes?

9.Doctor Elefun, nice, at work, creation, concern?

10.Astro Boy, unpredictable, rejected?

11.Astro Boy going to Earth, meeting the group of children, on the outskirts, his friendship with Cora? Cora as a character? Ham Egg, the ringmaster? The robots, discovering the truth about Astro Boy, setting up the confrontation, especially with Zog? The visuals of the battle?

12.The president, wanting the red power? Finding Astro Boy? The confrontation with Doctor Tenma? Tenma helping?

13.The president going into the Peacemaker, becoming a monster, the confrontation with Astro Boy? The children helping?

14.The finale, Astro Boy saving the world, saving Metro City? Reconciled with Doctor Tenma? A new life and adventures?

THE SIEGE

US, 1998, 113 minutes, Colour.
Denzel Washington, Annette Bening, Bruce Willis, Tony Shaloub, Sami Bouajila.
Directed by Edward Zwick.

The Siege takes its starting point from the bombs in the New York World Trade Towers during the 1990s, before September 11th 2001. What if terrorism took hold in the US in the way it does in other countries? What if New York were under martial law? This is an intelligent actioner rather than just a Boys' Own Adventure, even though Denzel Washington is the Mr Upright of the FBI. Annette Benning gives a very interesting performance as a former deep cover agent. Bruce Willis has a chance to be villainous as an extreme hawkish general 'taking control for the good of the nation'.

The screenplay has been attacked as singling out Arabs as terrorists. However, it is complex and I would have thought that the film was anti-racism and stereotyping and was quite critical of jingoistic American attitudes, raising issues of how America has alienated those with whom it worked in covert subversive activities who now want revenge for being abandoned by the CIA. Director Edward Zwick also made the war-questioning movies Glory and Courage Under Fire.

1.Pictures of terrorism in the United States? The terrorism of the 1990s? Viewed after 9/11?

2.The credibility of the plot, characters, situations? At the time, later? Hindsight? The tradition of films about terrorism?

3.New York City in the 1990s, the initial attack on the Twin Towers, the influence on the screenplay, Arab terrorists? The attack on embassies in Nairobi and Tanzania?

4.The 1990s and Arabs, the American experience, Saddam Hussein and the Gulf War, relationships with Arabia, terrorism in Yemen, Beirut, Iran? The distant terror? Terror in the United States, in New York City (and at the time of the release, plans were being made for the attack on September 11, 2001)?

5.American fears, prejudices, judgmental attitudes, ethnic clichés, as illustrated after 9/11?

6.Terror in New York City visualised, the terrorist cells, the perpetrators? The targets, the methods, merciless attitudes: the buses, death in the streets, the theatre and the deaths of the affluent? Indiscriminate killing? Disaffected students, the issues of visas? The head of the cells, collaboration – and his leading on the CIA? Interrogations? Suicides?

7.The staging of the attack on the bus, on the theatre? The final confrontations?

8.Elise/Sharon? CIA, her cover, expertise, experience? Helping Hub? The contacts? Sexual relationships with spies? Motivations? With Samir? Wanting names, information? Contacting Hub, working with him? His suspicions? Her being introduced as Sharon? The truth about her? Cooperation, compromised because of Samir, trying to help him, his betrayal, caught? Her death? Saving Hub?

9.Hub, a decent man, FBI agent, his character, working with Frank as his assistant agent? The team? The situation in New York City, the authorities? The president and his absence? The FBI being brought in, their detective work? Trying to negotiate for the bus, the sudden explosion? The puzzle about Elise? Frank and the information about his son, internment? The objections? Hub and the media, the interviews, the media’s critique of the FBI work? Anger? The interrogations, the build-up to the confrontation? Meeting with General Devereaux? Devereaux and his attitudes, taking control? The set-up at the end, success, Hub not killed, Sharon’s death?

10.Frank, his work, an agent of long standing, Lebanese background, the years in the United States, his son being rounded up under suspicion, the visualising of the internees? New York paranoia? Upset, his search, Hub helping?

11.The president, his role, advice, the general? The state of siege?

12.Bruce Willis as the general, decorated, his skills, smiling, ideas, with Hub and Frank, with Elise? The roundup, the state of panic? His growing despotic attitude, the confrontations and accusations?

13.The picture of the populace, life under siege in New York City, the fear of war? The results of terror?

14.The film as entertainment – with the touch of prophecy?

RIGHT AT YOUR DOOR

US, 2006, 96 minutes, Colour.
Mary Mc Cormack, Rory Cochrane, Tony Perez, Scotty Noyd Jnr.
Directed by Chris Gorak.

A small-budget disaster film that indicates a what-might-be terror scenario in an American city.

Everyone wakes up to an ordinary day in LA. Our focus is on a couple (Mary Mc Cormack and Rory Cochrane). After breakfast, she goes to work, he stays at home. Suddenly and certainly unexpectedly, three bombs go off, two in downtown LA and one at LAX. What happens?

The film plays something like a documented cinema verite of what it might actually be like. It also plays like a story out of Twilight Zone.

The bewilderment is something that strikes us. Not only is the husband uncertain what is happening but he has to control his panic to try to work out what is best to do. In this day and age, fortunately some of the lines of communication are open. Radio continually sounds in the background (the film not showing anything of what is happening in the stricken areas), TV commentators are able to keep people somewhat up-to-date but news is geared to preventing panic. Phone lines are open but clogged. Hospitals and rescue centres are at bursting point.

Ultimately, residents are advised to seal their houses to prevent what are announced as toxic fumes from getting into homes. A local gardener joins the husband and together they wait. Is the wife dead? What will happen if she arrives home and cannot be let into the house. What are the physical effects? The psychological effects? What of the police, army reserves? How long will it take to get help?

These and other questions are all answered. The desaturated colour reminds us of the grim consequences of such terrorism in an American city. The fadeouts suggest the agonising passing of time. The darkness, especially at the end is stifling and claustrophobic.

A pity that the screenplay is too often punctuated with banal (and realistic to that extent) profanity, four letter desperation and OK, OK, OK substituting for language that might be less realistic but more dramatically real and powerful.

Two questions: does this kind of film aggravate US paranoia concerning the war against terror? Will audiences want to put themselves through this cinema ordeal of a terror scenario, no matter how real?

1.The impact of the film? For American audiences? Los Angeles audiences? Worldwide? The possibility of this kind of terrorist attack? The impact, authorities having to cope? Families and individuals?

2.The Los Angeles setting, the suburb, the homes and the streets, gas stations, shops? The skyline? The impact of the explosions, the smoke over the skyline? The falling ash? The musical score?

3.The film relying on radio and television broadcasts to give information about the disaster, the consequences, people’s reactions? The film not showing much visually? Confining itself to the street and the suburbs? The claustrophobic impact? Experiencing the uncertainty of those involved? Panic, desperation?

4.The establishing of the ordinary day, people waking up, the media? Lexie and Brad, their life together, intimacy? Breakfast? Lexie going to work, Brad, out of work, staying at home? A normal day?

5.The impact of the explosions, in downtown Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, at the airport? The range of influence, the explosions and the destruction? Injuries and deaths? The toxic ash?

6.Brad, his concern about Lexie, the phone calls, going out in the car, being warned to go back home, going to the shop, people getting goods, stocking up, the touch of looting? His buying the material to seal up the house? His attempts to get further, his being turned back? His seeing Timmy in the street and urging him to go home? The irony of Timmy coming back later?

7.Phone calls, difficulties of getting through, messages on Lexie’s mobile? Lexie’s mother and her phone call, his not telling her the truth, hanging up? the impossibility of getting through because of clogged lines?

8.Alvaro, his being the gardener in the neighbouring home, asking to come in, Brad’s negative reaction, panic? Alvaro’s explanations? The decision to seal up the house, Alvaro helping? The thoroughness and the hard work of sealing every crack? The irony of the consequences later for the toxins being able to germinate in the house? Alvaro and his presence, Brad’s mixed feelings, Alvaro wanting him to answer the phone, not wanting to interfere? Alvaro not able to contact his wife, his final decision to walk out and go home?

9.The film’s focus on Brad, his panic, bewilderment, not knowing what to do? The emotional impact? Taking it out on Alvaro? Lexie’s sudden return, her desperation, wanting to get into the house? The story of her being in the car, the explosions? Her walking back, her injuries? Toxic, realising that she would die?

10.Lexie, outside, her calming down, knowing that she couldn’t come into the house? The ways of communicating with Brad, talking through the window, staying outside? Timmy’s arrival? Her wanting him to have a shower, talking with him, Brad sealing up the bedroom and her being able to go in, the shower? Her taking Timmy and helping him at the hospital, her not being able to get any help, no medicine? Her character, her phone calls to her mother, her mother and her interference, the sad talk with her brother? The other brother, Rick, and his wanting her to go, her going with him, Rick’s death?

11.The growing pressure on Brad, the separation of the two, days and nights passing? The reflection on their marriage, on their life, apologies?

12.The services coming around, in the garden, sinister, masked, tortures? Brad having seen the man shot getting out of his car previously? Suspicions, wanting them to go out of the house, their putting up the red sign, Lexie taking it down? The final arrival, the examination of the house, dragging Lexie away? The irony of her going to be safe, getting the medicine? Brad trapped in the house, their boarding up the house completely, his being in the darkness, pumping the gas into the house? His being left to die?

13.How accurate the portrait of young adults coping with the situation, not coping? Their personalities, the limits of what they could do? The mundane dialogue? The desperate dialogue? Audience sympathies, with Brad leaving Lexie outside, her coming to terms with this? Her being taken off? Brad and his survival – and the irony that he was to die?

14.A film like this making American audiences more paranoid about the war against terror? The plausibility and possibility of this kind of disaster in an American city? The action of the president, the guard and the reserves, local authorities? Hospitals overcrowded? Analysing the toxins, the limits of medicine available? The semi-documentary style of the film?

BLOW

US, 2001, 123 minutes, Colour.
Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Franca Portente, Rachel Griffiths, Paul Reubens, Jordi Molla, Cliff Curtis, Max Erlich, Miguel Sandoval, Ethan Suplee, Ray Liotta.
Directed by Ted Demme.

Many countries have legislation preventing convicted criminals from benefiting financially by selling their stories to the media. There is no law preventing them having their stories told in movies. Sometimes these are case studies warning audiences about the violence of the criminals or about psychopathic or sociopathic behaviour. Sometimes they seem to excuse the criminals. Blow, the story of American drug dealer, George Jung, falls somewhere in between.

Jung grew up poor, with an ambitious mother and a gentle father. He vowed never to be like them. In the late 60s, he stumbled on the drug culture on the California beaches, teamed up with some local dealers and, despite (as he says later in the film) his ambition outweighing his talent, he becomes so successful that he becomes one of the major contacts for drug lord, Paolo Escobar, and importing cocaine into the US in the 70s and 80s.

The drug culture is shown to have its hedonistic moments, its easy wealth, its easy come, easy go attitude towards life, its decadence and drugtaking destructiveness. Through it all, Johnny Depp as Jung, sometimes floating, sometimes betrayed, often drug-riddled, seems like the boy next door who simply took a wrong turn. Not that his mother, Rachel Griffiths in harridan manner, approves. His father, a gentle Ray Liotta, disapproves but loves his son.

Finally, Jung is set up and is now in prison until 2015. Blow is often a cautionary tale (though it shows the effects of addicts only in the dealers themselves), often a 'what if...?' fantasy of wealth and glamour, often a reminder of what has happened in the world's embracing the drug culture over the last forty years.

1.The title? Cocaine? The history of cocaine in the United States? Latin America, Colombia? The credits and the showing of the process of the making of cocaine?

2.The US in the 1960s and 1970s? Massachusetts families, homes? The contrast with California, the beach culture? The Colombian locations? Action in Florida? The range of American locations, giving authenticity to this story? The musical score?

3.The time span, the framework of George Jung in jail, his reminiscences? His voice-over and his commentary on what happened, his observations on himself, his character, strengths and weaknesses? Audience sympathy with George, antagonism towards him?

4.The American drug culture from the 1960s? The marijuana, the dealers? Local? The opening up of the cocaine trade, the crops, Paolo Escobar and his being the leader of the cocaine cartels? The smuggling into America, the distribution?

5.The scenes of George as a young boy, his relationship with his mother, her severity, her wanting money, her pressurising her husband, her walking out, her always returning, her husband welcoming her back? Fred, with the men at work his love for his son, a weaker man than his wife was strong? Not standing up to her? His devotion to George? George as a young boy, ordinary? His observing his parents, his declaration that he would never be poor?

6.George and his decision to go to California? The people, Barbara, his relationship with her? The clubs, the beaches, the dealers? The introduction to Derek Foreal? George and the collaboration with Derek, his friends, Kevin Dulli and his collaboration? The importing, the sources, Mexico and the marijuana coming from there? George, the deals, the interviews with the Mexicans? The Mexican production of marijuana, transport, their relying on George?

7.George, the arrest? In Chicago, in jail? Barbara, his love for her, their farewell, her death, the funeral?

8.Diego, his friendship with George, his personality, seemingly a weaker partner? Car thefts? The planning, the interest in cocaine? George and the release from prison, the custody of his parents? Their attitudes, his mother’s severity, his father’s lenience? George going to Colombia, the meeting with Pablo Escobar? The drug cartel in Colombia? Escobar and his decision to go with George? The each summing the other up? George and his success?

9.The 1970s, the importing of the cocaine into the United States? The wealth? The relying on Derek, the cocaine being distributed on the west coast? George and his secrecy, not telling Diego about Derek?

10.George and his encounter with Mirtha, the socials, the parties, her extroversion, the relationship, the good times, their having the daughter, Kristina? Her ambitions, her wanting money?

11.George, his naivety despite his good business sense, his telling Diego about the distribution on the west coast? Diego going behind his back, working with Derek, cutting out George? George and his not realising this?

12.George, the passing of the years, his trying to get off the drugs, his relationship with Mirtha, their home life? Her garish behaviour, the beginnings of alienation?

13.The set-up, George arrested, Derek setting him up? George in prison, again the reliance on his parents, his mother excluding him, telephoning the police? His father and his wanting to help his son?

14.George in prison, the experience? His reflection on his life? The possibility of going straight? Mirtha’s alienation, her visit to him to declare that they would be divorced? His release, coming out, his early forties, his not having seen his daughter, going to the school, talking with her, walking her to and fro? His discussions with Mirtha, Mirtha allowing him to see their daughter, his plan to go to California, his daughter’s dream to go there, the plan, setting up the date, her going to meet him, sitting and waiting, his being in prison?

15.The set-up with Julie, the drug deal, the waiters being FBI and Drug Enforcement, his being arrested? His not being able to see his daughter? His long-term sentence? George in jail, working in the garden, imagining his daughter grown up and coming to see him, his bewilderment?

16.The portrait of a successful drug dealer? The high life? Prosperity? Lack of moral grounding? Prison sentences, his being beyond the law? His relationship with his parents, his severe mother, his gentle father and his father’s illness? His love for Barbara, the contrast with Mirtha and his being abandoned? The sympathy for him? The point being made, ironically, that no victims of drug addiction were seen, the focus staying on George and his colleagues?

OPEN HEARTS

Denmark, 2002, 114 minutes, Colour.
Mads Mikkelsen, Sonja Richter, Nikolai Lie Kaas, Paprika Steen, Stine Bjrregaard.
Directed by Suzanne Bier.

Open Hearts was particularly successful in its native Denmark. It is a story of contemporary life and relationships in Denmark.

The film was directed by Suzanne Bier who made the popular romantic comedy Den Eneste Ene remade in Britain as The One and Only. Her first Hollywood film is Things We Saved From The Fire (2007).

The film is a dogme film, using natural light, nothing artificial according to the dogme principles of 1995. This means that the film has no artificial lighting to give tone and colour to the film. Sometimes it is particularly dark, there are also some split-screen scenes as well as bleached-out and grainy close-ups which are for fantasies. However, the dogme style contributes to the strong focus on the central characters.

The characters are five, an engaged couple, the man suffering an accident and becoming a quadriplegic, in a car accident driven by the wife of the doctor in the hospital. The doctor meets the fiancée, begins an affair with her – leaves his wife and is found out by his teenage daughter.

The strength of the film is in the dialogue, the revelation of character, inner attitudes and stances, love, betrayal and hurt.

The film transcends its Danish context and is an interesting film in terms of relationships at a universal level.

1.The popularity of the film? The dogme style, photography, editing, pace, the lighting, the bleached-out effects, reality and fantasy? The use of close-ups?

2.The Copenhagen setting, the musical score – and the closing song, ‘Little Things’?

3.The title, the indication of the audience seeing into the variety of characters, their emotions, their relationships?

4.The accident as the catalyst for the change in relationships? Joachim as a student, his being engaged to Cecily, her being a cook? The car being driven by Marie? The paralysis, quadriplegic? Cecily, the cook, her love for Joachim, coming to visit him? Niels, his work in the hospital, his relationship with Joachim? His relationship with Cecily? Marie, her guilt? The change in relationships? The focus on Stine as the teenage daughter? A catalyst for the revelation of the truth?

5.Joachim, before the accident, his lovemaking with Cecily, the underwear, the possibility of a future? The accident and his injuries? His behaviour in the hospital, especially his aggression towards the middle-aged nurse, the sexual insults? His own emasculation? Harassment? The break with Cecily? Relationship with Niels? His future?

6.Cecily, her age, as a cook, her not having any family or friends, focused on Joachim? The meeting with Niels, his age, the difference? His invitation for her to phone him? The frequent calls? The decision to begin an affair? Joachim removing the furniture? Niels and the new furniture? Cecily and the continuing relationship, her encounter with Stine? Her phone call and this forcing an admission of what was happening? Niels and his moving in with Cecily, Joachim wanting her to come to the hospital, to resume the relationship? Eventually Niels breaking up, his leaving Cecily? Joachim and his advice, Cecily and her own life, independence? The final discussions with Niels? Her leaving, driving away?

7.Marie, the accident, her feelings of guilt? Her relationship with Niels, with Stine? The fragility of the marriage? The shock of Niels’ betrayal, his moving out?

8.Stine, her relationship with her parents, finding the delivery note for the furniture, the visit to the apartment, her seeing her father, Cecily? Cecily ringing the home to tell the parents where Stine was? The effect of the experience on Stine?

9.Niels, at the hospital, kindness, the fragility of his marriage? The phone calls from Cecily, their discussions? The credibility of the beginning of the affair, the progress of the affair, the issue of the furniture? Stine and her discovery of the truth? His confession? His allowing Cecily her independence? His own future?

10.A contemporary look at contemporary relationships, strengths and weaknesses, love, commitment, betrayal?

RUSSIAN ARK

Russia, 2002, 99 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Aleksandr Sokurov.

Russian Ark is the work of the celebrated Russian director Aleksandr Sokurov who has explored Russia and Europe’s past in such films as Molok, Taurus, The Father. He also explored something of the relationship with Japanese history in Black Sun.

The film is a tour-de-force as it is taken in one single shot, on high digital video. This gives a great flexibility of movement to the camera as it moves through the Hermitage Museum in St Petersburg.

While a contemporary character, unseen, begins his tour of the Hermitage in the present, he is joined by a 19th century French aristocrat, Custine, who accompanies him through the museum. Together, they observe, they talk, they explore the history of Russia. The film also gives the opportunity of seeing the gallery, the masterpieces of European art that are on display as well as understand the taste which brought them there. The film also has historical characters, in the dress of their times, as they move through the museum culminating in a ball, set in 1913 on the eve of World War One, where people dance the Mazurka, applaud themselves – and then hurry out into the night, the camera moving with them out into the darkness of contemporary St Petersburg.

The film explores the Russian character, Russian history, the 19th century man unable to understand what happened to Russia and its range of events from the Russian Revolution to the collapse of the Soviet empire. The contemporary man also has his limitations in understanding the background of Russia.

The film gives the opportunity for an audience not only to see what is in the Hermitage and have a tour but also to explore the whole notion of Russia and its history.

1.The quality of the film? As a work of art? Cinema art? As an exploration of history and the arts?

2.The technical bravura of the film, high digital video, the single 99-minute take? The mobility of the camera, the angles, the close-ups? The timing of the action so that it all could be completed in one take? The musical score?

3.The role of the narrator, the introduction to the contemporary young man, the audience not seeing him, but looking through his eyes? Custine, the background of the 19th century, the culture of Russia in the time, its elegance, French links, visual arts, costumes, manners?

4.The Hermitage itself, its place in St Petersburg, its housing of art? It historical role in the history of St Petersburg? The experience of World War Two and the communist era? The recovery of the Hermitage and its status?

5.Custine and his trying to understand the 20th century? The explanations? His bewilderment that the events of the 20th century could possibly happen? The contemporary man, his understanding of history, history and geography, his having to learn the geopolitical experiences of Russia in the past?

6.The works of art, the middle of the film, the close-ups of the particular paintings, Van Dyk, Rubens, El Greco, Rembrandt? The humour of the camera trying to get close and the guard pushing it away? The harassment by the guards wanting to close the museum?

7.The historical people, their entering into the gallery, later their being seen, along with historical characters like Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Pushkin, Nicholas and Alexandra? The 19th century visitor from the Persian court and the elaborate ritual of his bringing gifts? The man and the coffins for the victims of the siege of Leningrad?

8.The final ball, World War One, the orchestra, dancing, the Mazurka, the discipline? The spectators? Their costumes? The movement of the camera inside the dance? Particular characters that audiences identify with? Exuberance, cultural achievement?

9.The ending, the tour, the audience sharing the experiences, the historical sweep, the artistic sweep? Coming out into the open and a possibility of reflection on the experience of Russia through the Hermitage?

ROCK STAR

US, 2001, 105 minutes, Colour.
Mark Wahlberg, Jennifer Aniston, Jason Flemyng, Dominic West, Jason Bonham, Timothy Spaull, Timothy Olyphant, Dagmara Dominczyk, Beth Grant.
Directed by Stephen Herek.

Rock Star will appeal only to those who like the 80s and its music – and the opportunity to travel back into the atmosphere of rock groups at that period.

The film was allegedly based on an actual character, Tim Owens who was a singer in a Judas Priest cover band and was chosen to replace the main singer. In this film, Mark Wahlberg plays Chris Cole who imitates Bobby Beers, the lead singer in a band called Steel Dragon. He emulates Bobby Beers at a concert to Beers’s annoyance. Cole is ambitious to reproduce the music of Steel Dragon and is alienated from his own small band. He then receives a call from Steel Dragon to front them – and he accepts. From then on, the ingenuous enthusiast becomes caught up in the rock star world and its decadence.

Mark Wahlberg, who was himself a singer, Markie Mark, performs credibly enough in the central role. Jennifer Aniston is his girlfriend and manager. Three British actors are in the leads in Steel Dragon, Jason Flemyng as Bobby Beers, Dominic West (in an extraordinarily odd wig) as the lead guitarist and audition and Timothy Spaull giving an interesting performance as the road manager.

The film shows the glamour of the American dream to be a rock star, offers a critique of it, offers a look at the sleazy and decadent way of life. It becomes moral at the end, with Timothy Spaull giving a parable about walking out on an old life to form a new life and the romance between Wahlberg and Aniston taking centre stage. Ultimately, he is reunited with his former band.

For those who enjoy the music, there will be entertainment value. For others it is a mere curiosity item about a past era. Direction is by Stephen Herek who has directed a wide range of light films like The Three Musketeers but his most serious film was Mr Holland’s Opus.

1.The niche market for this film? Fans of the 1980s? Rock 'n roll of the 1980s? The life and dreams of the rock star?

2.The Pittsburgh setting, ordinary life, the rock 'n roll scene, the concerts? The workplaces and homes? The transition to California, the opulent lifestyle? On the road, the concerts, the hotels, the groupies? The re-creation of the rock world?

3.The music, the songs, the rock 'n roll style, the groups, styles of performance?

4.The focus on Chris Cole? His place in the family, his rock 'n roll parents and their continued support? His policeman brother and the criticisms? His relationship with Emily? At work? At the concerts, making himself up, his playing in his group, his relationship with Rob? The other members of the band? At the concert, watching Bobby Beers, screaming, singing better than Bobby? Bobby’s reaction? His not getting tickets from Mats? The girls getting the tickets? His dream of being a rock star, life at home, his room, songs? Relationship with the band, wanting them to be perfect in the singing, the clashes with Rob? His decision to leave, wanting just simply to imitate Steel Dragon? Their letting him go? Going with Emily?

5.Emily, her friendship with Chris, support, manager? Her appreciating his talent and telling Rob and the others?

6.The phone call from Kirk Cuddy? His disbelief, going to California with Emily? Meeting Tanya? Her style? The house, affluence? Meeting the group, the audition? His being accepted? His being renamed Izzy? The English accent? The press conference, answering questions, the expected answers, the lifestyle, women, drugs?

7.Performances, his success? The fall from the steps, his getting up and continuing? His meeting Mats again, Mats and his support? The various members of the group? Chris and his wanting to write songs, A.C. and his not allowing him, Kirk telling him straight about his place in the group?

8.On the road, the groupies, the girls? The parties? Emily being caught up in this, waking up with all the people in the house? Trying to make a go with Chris? Having to sit with the other women in the cars, their talk, their acceptance of the men’s infidelity and behaviour, coming back to them, giving them gifts, going shopping? Emily not wanting to be part of this?

9.The collage of the time passing, Chris’s success, the concerts, the music? Arriving in Seattle, Emily and the girls in the elevator, their talking promiscuously? Her confronting Chris, his not knowing that he was in Seattle? Her wanting to set up her own business? Her grief and departure?

10.Chris and his talking with Mats, Mats’s story about walking out on his wife? The concert, Chris coming to his senses, deciding to walk out?

11.Back home, with his own group, with Rob, his own songs? The possibility of a new life? Emily and her wanting a life, going to the concert, seeing him?

12.A re-creation of the period, the fantasy of the rock star’s glamorous life? The reality? The moralising about it?

PHONE BOOTH

US, 2002, 82 minutes, Colour.
Colin Farrell, Kiefer Sutherland, Forest Whitaker, Radha Mitchell, Katie Holmes
Directed by Joel Schumacher

Stu Shepard (Colin Farrell) is a cocky young publicist. His clothes, his mobile phone, his deals for clients—all these define who he is. He tries to impress his trainee, Adam, and is infatuated with an aspiring actress, Pam (Katie Holmes). He loves his wife, Kelly (Radha Mitchell), but this does not stop him from going into the only old-fashioned phone booth left in Manhattan every day, slipping off his wedding ring, and calling Pam.

As he removes his ring to call Pam one day, a man tries to deliver a pizza to him in the booth. Stu rudely sends him away. When the phone rings in the booth, Stu answers it. It is a man (Kiefer Sutherland) who tells Stu it is not in his best interest to hang up. Stu is then caught in a terrorizing conversation with the caller, who boasts that he has executed several men who were morally guilty of cruelty, greed, or deception and would not confess to their sins and failings. The caller proves he is serious when he shoots Leon, a pimp who is trying to force Stu to leave the phone booth so his prostitutes can use the phone. The police converge, a crowd gathers, and the television crews turn up. Everyone thinks Stu is Leon’s killer at first, and the caller/sniper threatens Stu with death if he hangs up or lets the police know what is actually happening.

The sniper enjoys tormenting Stu in a cat and mouse game. He forces him to do dangerous things like reaching for a gun hidden near the light in the ceiling of the phone booth. When Kelly arrives on the scene, the caller insists that Stu tell the truth about his infidelities to her in front of everyone, which Stu does.

Captain Ramey (Forest Whitaker), who heads the police effort, slowly figures out what is happening. He, too, is humiliated when the sniper/caller insists that Stu confront him with secret truths about his life. But the captain remains steady, willing to hear the truth. Eventually, the sniper’s threats and lies overwhelm Stu, who makes a full confession of his deceit-filled life to everyone watching. He leaves the booth, arms extended, willing to be killed. The police shoot him with a rubber bullet to misdirect the sniper. The media records every word and action for the evening news.

Stu and the captain figure out the sniper’s location. When the police arrive, they find only the dead pizza man. The police assume it is the killer who shot himself. The medic gives Stu an injection for the pain as he waits in the ambulance. As Stu begins to feel the drug’s effect, the real sniper passes by and urges Stu to maintain his new-found honesty.

During the 1930s, Patrick Hamilton (author of Gaslight) wrote a radio play about a man who was pursued from telephone booth to telephone booth by an unseen assailant until he was shamed into admitting the truth about his life. Seventy years later, the concept reached the screen with this film written by Larry Cohen and directed by Joel Schumacher. Cohen became successful in the 1970s and 1980s by writing and directing a succession of small-budget horror films such as It's Alive, The Stuff, and Q, The Winged Serpent. Joel Schumacher directed some of the biggest hits of the 1990s, including Falling Down, two Batman films, and two adaptations of John Grisham novels, A Time to Kill and The Client. He also directed the movie version of Andrew Lloyd Webber’s The Phantom of the Opera. However, he made a number of small-budget dramas like Flawless and his Vietnam movie, Tigerland. Phone Booth was made in ten days with a minimal budget and has a very brief running time, but Schumacher's flair ensures that this is an impressive and tense drama.

Colin Farrell emerged as a popular leading man in Schumacher's Tigerland and reinforced it in Hart's War, Minority Report, Daredevil, The Recruit, and S.W.A.T. He appeared in seven films in 2003 and had the lead role in the 2004 epic Alexander, directed and written by Oliver Stone. Farrell suits the part of Stu perfectly. Kiefer Sutherland provides the sinister voice of the judgmental sniper, and Forest Whitaker (The Crying Game) is the careful and sympathetic police chief. Schumacher is something of a razzle-dazzle director, and he uses this style to pump up audience tension and excitement by pacing Stu's growing exasperation, the hectic pulse of Manhattan, and the circus atmosphere provided by the crowds of onlookers and the media.

Katie Holmes (Dawson’s Creek; I know what You did Last Summer, The Gift, The Singing Detective) appears as Stu's unwitting girlfriend, and Radha Mitchell (High Art, Pitch Black, Melinda and Melinda) as his wife.


1.An interesting thriller? Psychological thriller? The experience of the phone, communication, a vehicle for threats? Violence? Truth?

2.The New York settings, the filming on the streets, hand-held cameras, the phone booth, the background buildings? The musical score?

3.The title, phones in films? The prologue, the satellite, the phone system, cell phones, pay phones? The collages? People talking? The last booth? The calls, the kiosk?

4.The situation, the agent and publicist, his assistant, other people’s lives in danger, the sniper, the police?

5.The agent, on the street, the inserting of the pictures, the deals, Adam and his emulation of Stu?

6.Stu, his palaver, the clients, events, venues? His spiel? The police information? Tickets? Publicists? Photos, headlines? Information and lies? The restaurant, Mario, the promises? Adam and his wanting to get ahead?

7.Going into the booth, the pizza delivery man, his rudeness, the reaction to the pizza man, the irony of his murder? Ringing Pam, the relationship with Pam, taking the ring off?

8.The first call, the sniper and his threats, the pizza, the neighbourhood, the command to obey, the windows, knowing all the information about Stu? Stu and the threat, his being crushed, his cocky reaction?

9.The second call, ringing Pam, not kidding about, the lies, the explanation, his explanations to Pam about the cell phone? Kelly, the cheap hotels? The hooker, calling Kelly, listening? The sniper wanting Stu to tell the truth about Pam?

10.The rifle, the shot, his being urged to be a man? The reasons for shooting? The ten dollars to the man? The intrusion of Leon?

11.Leon being shot, blaming Stu? The issue of respect, guilty of inhumanity? The other deaths? Stu to be punished?

12.The police, calling for hands up, the sniper talking, Captain Remey, the use of the split screen, keeping people at bay, the sniper laughing, the weapon, the psychological effect, the issue of rights, the lawyer? The interrogation about sex, masturbation, Vietnam?

13.The media arriving, tracing the call? The sniper telling Stu he was in this position because of sin? Media talk, the superior officer? The issue of tracing the call and forming a subsequent plan?

14.Kelly’s arrival, the information to Captain Remey, getting Kelly away? The taunts to Stu about Kelly and other men, Stu making an apology, hanging up?

15.The new call, the tantrum, Captain Remey and the search for the perpetrator, the gun planted? Stu being attacked as full of lies? Pam – and his being forced to take the gun, Stu’s option to kill either Kelly or Pam? The ring on the floor, the cell phone, Captain Remey and Kelly hearing it? Remey’s tactics?

16.Remey and Stu, the psychological talk, the references to Oprah? His sins finally catching up with him, Stu confessing, promising to do what was right, no more half-truths, baring his soul? The sniper offering the choice to redeem himself? The confession, fantasies? Being nice to people? Stu and his public confession, about Adam and his treatment of him, Kelly, part of the cycle of lies? The sniper continually watching him, Stu being forced to say that he was ashamed of himself? His image, not liking what was under the surface? The sniper – and his statement that he never intended Stu to be free?

17.Getting the information, Stu threatening the sniper, challenging him to take him? The sniper and the shot, the rubber bullet? The search of the apartment, the sniper gone, the pizza man dead? The sniper passing by the phone booth? His remarks to Stu? The reconciliation with Kelly, hoping that the newfound honesty would last – as the sniper said, “Or else you’ll be hearing from me”?

18.The overall psychological effect, audiences identifying with the characters, the situation? The issue of morality, confession, redemption?

MOONLIGHT MILE

US, 2002, 117 minutes, Colour.
Jake Gyllenhaal, Dustin Hoffman, Susan Sarandon, Holly Hunter, Alan Corduner, Dabney Coleman.
Directed by Brad Silberling.

Moonlight Mile is a little-known vehicle for Dustin Hoffman and Susan Sarandon. It is also a vehicle for Jake Gyllenhaal making the transition from juvenile lead to adult. He was to make quite an impact in a number of films including Donnie Darko at this time and then Jarhead and Brokeback Mountain. Dustin Hoffman and Susan Sarandon play parents of Gyllenhaal’s fiancée who was killed by accident. He is to stay with them as a witness in the court case. They do not know that she broke up some days before the accident. When Gyllenhaal meets a sympathetic young woman, whose boyfriend has been missing in Vietnam, they are attracted. This raises tension in the family and moral decisions for Gyllenhaal’s character.

The film focuses on family, family bonds, the suffering of grief and loss, the expectations that somebody will step in and take the place of the missing child.

The film was written and directed by Brad Silberling whose previous films included Casper as well as the remake of Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire, City of Angels.

1.The impact of the film? Emotional? Death and grief? Relationships?

2.The Massachusetts setting? The small town? The title? 1973 and the background of the Vietnam war? The musical score?

3.The focus on the killing, the restaurant shooting, Diana and her death? Her parents, Jo Jo and Ben, their grief, having to deal with the death? Their own work, jobs? Receiving Diana’s fiancé, Joe, into the household? His staying with them? The bonds? His not being able to tell them that Diana had broken off the engagement? The portrait of an average American husband and wife – strengthened by the presence of Dustin Hoffman and Susan Sarandon?

4.Joe, his background, his relationship with Diana, love for her, the break-up? The revelation of the break-up? his staying in the house, being one of the family, the details of the ordinary experience in the house? The testimony? His meeting Bertie, talking together, sharing experiences? Sharing grief? His falling in love with her? The difficulty of forming a relationship, his telling her about the break-up with Diana? The reaction of Jo Jo and Ben, seeing Joe and his love for Bertie?

5.Diana’s parents, their presence at the trial, grief, attitude towards Joe?

6.Joe, the trial, his testimony? The emotional speech, his realising that he had to change, to move on? Diana’s parents and their response?

7.Bertie, in herself, her relationship with Cal, his going to Vietnam, his being missing, her grief? Attraction towards Joe? Listening to him, his confession about Diana? The bar? Her finally accepting that Cal is dead? The decision to sell the bar?

8.Jo Jo and Ben, the various plans they had, for Joe to become part of the family, become part of the firm? Each of them and their love for their work, their hope for continuity?

9.Joe and Bertie, moving on from this traumatic experience? Hope for a new life?

10.A portrait of ordinary people, a portrait of grief – and insight of the reactions of ordinary people?

SUPERSTITION

UK, 2001, 95 minutes, Colour.
Mark Strong, Sienna Guilleroy, David Warner, Charlotte Rampling, Alice Kriger, Frances Barber, Derek Delint.
Directed by Kenneth Hope.

Superstition is an odd supernatural thriller. While most of the cast is British, the setting is Italy and the characters Italian.

The film focuses on a young girl who seems to have telekinetic powers involved in fire. It emerges that she has inherited this from her family. However, when a child is killed in the house burning down, she is accused of murder. The woman herself (Sienna Guilleroy) is confused. She is supported by her lawyer, Mark Strong (an actor on the British stage and a character actor in films, with powerful performances in such films as Revolver and as the assassin in Syriana). Charlotte Rampling appears as a psychologist nun – rather modern in style, except that the community is a touch old-fashioned. Alice Kriger and Derek Delint are the parents of the dead child, David Warner is the judge.

The film involves on-site testing of the girl’s powers, prison sequences, the court case itself, the interrogations by authorities, the discussions with the psychologist nun.

The film is intriguing in its way – but a bit too British to be effective as an Italian story.

1.A supernatural thriller? Murder story? Court case?

2.The Italian settings, the mansions, the castles, the Italian countryside? The courts? The musical score?

3.The title, the reference to telekinetic powers, arsonist telekinetic powers? The focus on Julie? Her background, her family, her parents? The flashbacks? Sufficient explanation for her behaviour?

4.Julie, her age, in herself, a nanny, with the child, the death of the child? The parents, their support of her, their turning against her? Her imprisonment, the charges?

5.Antonio, her lawyer, his personality, his work, skills? His interviews with her, his puzzles, interviews with the witnesses? His believing in her? His experiences of her powers? Retracing the past? His involvement with her? Behaviour in court? The finale – vindicated or not?

6.Charlotte Rampling as the psychologist nun? Her reputation, Antonio going to visit her, their discussions? The contemporary nun, her professional work? Life in the convent? The superior? The habit, not wearing the habit? Her ease in her professional work? Meeting Julie? The discussions with Antonio? Her conclusions?

7.The parents, their love for their child, their reaction against Julie? The husband and his eye on Julie? The tension?

8.The judge? His behaviour in the court, judgments?

9.The background characters? The Italian court, the people in the town, suspicions?

10.A satisfying or unsatisfactory look at a strange problem? Psychological? Supernatural?