Filmknitter

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, Terry Gilliam's latest, has been hotly anticipated. Not because of Terry Gilliam; nor because of the interesting nature of the story, involving as it does the fight between good and evil, the devil, immortality etc; but because it is the film that Heath Ledger was making when he died. Those that go to see this film hoping to see a spectacular swansong will be disappointed. Ledger is his usual charismatic self but he is not by any means the main event in the film, being rather more by way of a catalyst. The ensemble cast also includes Christopher Plummer as the mysterious Dr Parnassus, Lily Cole as his gorgeous but frustrated daughter Valentina, Andrew "Cute As a Button" Garfield as fellow actor Anton, Verne Troyer as the ever-wise Percy, and Tom Waits in the best portrayal of Old Nick I've seen this year.

The story is hard to sum up. In basic terms we accompany a travelling show 'The Imaginarium' itself; drawn by four horses through the streets of London looking like a gypsy encampment, it transforms into a make-shift theatre where Dr Parnassus, Valentina, Anton, and Percy perform curious and surreal shows for drunks, in the hope of tempting them into the mysterious mirror at the back of the stage. Once inside the mirror they are in Dr Parnassus's mind but the world they find themselves in is also heavily influenced by their own imagination. Hiding somewhere in the landscape is Satan, who will give them a choice and hope that they are tempted into his grasp. Dr Parnassus (a god-like figure we presume) made a deal with the devil many years before, which resulted in the birth of his daughter, who will become the payment in the deal upon her 16th birthday. Parnassus strikes another deal with Old Nick - whichever of them can win 5 souls first keeps Valentina. Things are complicated by the mysterious arrival of Tony (Ledger); found hanging from a noose under a bridge, he is rescued by the troupe and in gratitude he revamps the show and persuades them to seek out a wealthier class of audience. Along the way, of course, Valentina falls for him; but is he really all he seems?

Parnassus really is a return to form for Terry Gilliam and, for whatever reason, I think it's great that so many people are going to see this film. It's certainly not what you'd call mainstream. In typical Gilliam fashion it is weird, wacky and wonderful, with a screwy sense of humour and a nonsensical plot. In general I've not heard great reviews and was a little apprehensive about going to see it, but I actually genuinely enjoyed it. Both sections of the film - those in London, and those in the imaginarium, are totally absorbing. You really feel like part of the idiosyncratic little travelling troupe and the cosy filming style and excellent set and costume design makes their life seem oddly attractive. The scenes in the parallel world of the imaginarium (where Tony is played by Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell) are surreal, hilarious, and obviously a chance for Gilliam to play around with the cartoony style that he first developed in Monty Python. The sequence with the singing policemen in skirts and tights is particularly Pythonesque and there are further delights to behold.

I suspect that had I been in a less indulgent mood the off-beat and scrappy nature of this film might have frustrated me a little but as it was I was more than happy to suspend my disbelief and just be sucked into the weird world of Dr Parnassus. Considering the tragedy of Ledger's death during production I think it's pretty impressive how Gilliam has managed to work around the loss of one of his main cast members and produce a film that is entertaining, intriguing, and absolutely different to everything else showing in the multiplexes this year.

Julie & Julia

Julie & Julia is based on two true stories. Firstly, that of Julie Powell, who in 2002 decided to cook her way through the entirety of Julia Child's book 'How to Master the Art of French Cooking', and blog about it here. Secondly, that of Julia herself when she first moved to Paris with her husband in 1948. Julia didn't have a job in Paris and feared getting bored so enrolled at Le Cordon Bleu cookery school and learnt to cook French cuisine like a natural. After successfully mastering French cookery she began teaching others before being invited to write a book by fellow foodie Simone De Beck and her friend Louisette Bertholle.

The film runs the two stories in parallel with some links between the two plotlines - as Julie's blog takes off her marriage struggles, and as Julia experiences success as a chef, her husband is being investigated at work. Generally, although the two stories are very different, they don't jar against each other and in fact I enjoyed the two together more, I think, than I would have done a single film about either woman. Both actors are spectacular. Meryl Streep's Julia Child is a literal hoot, imitating her voice and intonation perfectly, and with Child's characteristic presenting style on TV - professional but with a hint of the eternal amateur, which was what gave her her charm. Amy Adams is almost unrecognizable as mousy Julie, stuck in a cubicle and feeling utterly unfulfilled by her job. She is also utterly charming, though perhaps too much so, given that her real-life counterpart was much more caustic on her blog than the angelic Julie is, and also that her brief rift with her husband seems rather unrealistic given that all she'd apparently done to upset him was to cook him a good meal every night.

The film is a lot of fun and both plotlines are equally enjoyable. I left wanting to read both Julia's and Julie's books, and I'm sure Julie's original blog will get a sudden spike in visits as the first thing I did was to go and check it out - and very funny it is too. I can recommend this film to all - one to take your mother, daughter or sister to. And I'm sure any man who enjoys good food would appreciate it too!

(500) Days of Summer

(500) Days of Summer has been touted as this year's 'anti-rom-com' and has been adored by many, not least my good friend Lindsey over on Matching Curtains, who saw it with me last night. It subverts the genre in that it's your typical girl-meets-boy story, except that the boy (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is the romantic fool who idealizes the relationship, and the girl (Zooey Deschanel) is the hardened cynic who doesn't want to make a commitment and ditches him after a few months of hand-holding and trips to IKEA. As you might expect there is no happy ending here, but as you might not expect it does end on a note of hope and a suggestion that Tom's belief in soul-mates and true love might in fact be correct.

I did really enjoy this film, but if it hadn't ended the way it did I might not have, if that makes sense. The problem for me was that, ordinarily, I adore Zooey Deschanel and her scarily blue eyes and stoner accents, but in this film she came across as a giant bitca. Now, perhaps she's intended to, but I suspect the film-makers also want you to have hope for this fledgling relationship, whereas I just wanted to scream at the screen "RUN AWAY!!!!!". I loved Gordon-Levitt as Tom, he's as cute as a button, and is tailor-made for this kind of role, and I was delighted to find that they'd given him a hint of a happy ending. If it had ended with the end of Tom and Summer's relationship and no suggestion that things would get better I think I would have found the whole thing too depressing, as it was I left the cinema with a little bounce in my step, which was much better.

The film is directed very cleverly in a non-linear fashion, with flicking numbers telling us which day of the relationship we are seeing, and cunning cuts between the happiest days and the worst days. For instance, in one of the best sequences, Tom dances through the park after sleeping with Summer for the first time, commuters and road-sweepers falling into step behind him, animated bluebirds fluttering round his head, he enters the elevator at work looking like he's on top of the world - then the numbers flick forward and the elevator opens to show Tom in full on tragic-mime mode, complemented hilariously by a later sequence in the cinema when he appears to be watching a silent French film starring himself, communicating how desolate he feels after Summer leaves him. The soundtrack also is a delight, with plenty of Regina Spektor as well as other indie goodies.

I found this film really interesting in the way it presents the relationship, and it did get me thinking about the way rom-coms usually work. Summer seems like an evil ho simply because she's taking the stereotypically masculine role - as one of Tom's ill-advised blind dates points out she was clear with him from the start that she didn't want a relationship. But who would believe any girl who says such a thing?

This is definitely one I'll watch again, if only to work out the chronology, which is a little confusing at the start of the film but things slot into place as you see more of the 500 days. But, as many before me have done, I can also recommend it as an antidote to the slew of bad rom-coms this year (I'm looking at you "He's Just Not That Into You").

The Time Traveler's Wife

<< Isn't this poster awful?? So many beautiful images in this film and they do this combination of bad colours and strange head positions. Grrr.

Anyway, last night I went to see The Time Traveler's Wife. I haven't read the book (though, now I really want to) and wasn't sure whether it would be my kind of thing, but I was pleasantly surprised. I should have known really, after all I always enjoy a bit of time-travel, Rachel McAdams is one of my favourite actresses, and Eric Bana is very easy on the eye. None of these elements disappoint. Bana is the time-traveller - a boy called Henry discovers when he is 6 years old that he can time-travel when he and his mother are in a tragic car accident. His mum dies but young Henry 'travels' to two weeks ago, then back to the snowy road where he watches his mother's car get hit by a truck. But, who's this mysterious handsome stranger coming down the road? Why, it's a much older Henry, who wraps a blanket round his younger self and explains to young Henry what just happened. Yes, things get a little screwy, but overall the time-travelling element is much less confusing than in a lot of films, they keep things pretty simple. The key to knowing which (or when) Henry you are watching is to keep an eye on the length of his hair. Be warned - it does have a sad ending, but it's not a complete weepie; as you might expect people who time-travel at the drop of a hat, to unknown places, and are naked when they arrive so resort to breaking into the nearest home to grab some pants, tend not to have the longest life-expectancy.

Rachel McAdams is feisty and smart as the wife of the title. She is, in fact, the more interesting character of the two. As we discover near the beginning of the film she knows much more about Henry's condition than he does, and has much more realistic reactions to the complications of being married to a time-traveller. Henry is a pretty face but spends most of the film looking confused, it's difficult to get a handle on his character. Clare (Adams) is lovely, fore-bearing, and as a bonus, has some gorgeous outfits. Her determination to have a child with Henry despite a sequence of miscarriages as the developing foetus time-travels out of her womb, is sometimes difficult to understand, but you have to admire her tenacity, especially when Henry, determined to protect her health, has a vasectomy (see the film for how she gets around that one!).

The film looks beautiful generally, the colours are deep and rich and with such attractive leads and locations it's difficult to go wrong. Henry's 'condition' is handled well and you can almost believe that such a genetic abnormally could exist - the problem of clothes not being able to 'travel' is a neat one. There are a couple of holes in the plot, though I think they may be due to the adaptation of the book - from what I've heard it would not be an easy one to adapt to the screen. There are occasional unclear references to things which I assume are elaborated on in the book e.g. Dr Kendrick's work on geneticism and his understanding of Henry's condition - it's not clear how he has acquired this knowledge as he is completely clueless when Henry first approaches him. However, overall I thoroughly enjoyed this and I would want to see it again, as well as reading the book.

This was in fact my second cinema visit in 48 hours as our local cinema was re-showing Gladiator on Thursday night and as my housemate and I both missed it first time round (despite it being a firm DVD favourite for both of us now) we decided to go and see it. It was a real treat to see it on the big screen, it's such a cinematic story and so many scenes which passed me by on the TV gave me goosebumps seeing them at that scale. The shots of ancient Rome and the Colosseum are amazing, as well as the Caesars' palace. It really recalls the scale and grandeur of Hollywood's glory days in films such as Cleopatra, but with the added bite of dust, blood, and maggots as it portrays the grim and short life of the gladiator. The big screen also means that you can fully appreciate the majestic costumes worn by Joaquin Phoenix as Commodus - that white number for the final scene is incredible - and I noticed details such as the metal work on Commodus' and Maximus' breastplates and what they represent. Unfortunately the showing only attracted a handful of people but I hope that Vue continue to re-release more films in this way as, for the majority of us that can't afford a home cinema, it is the only way to truly appreciate these epic blockbusters that really don't have the same effect on the small screen.

Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds, Quentin Tarantino's latest feature film, reputedly took him ten years to write but only ten months to make. Well, all I can say is that it seems to be a winning formula for the talented Mr Tarantino. Inglourious Basterds is a departure from his earlier work in terms of era and subject matter but it's two hours of rip-roaring, grisly, hilarious fun. The Basterds of the title are a gang of ten Jewish Americans who have travelled to Europe under the leadership of one Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), who requests from his recruits no less than 100 Nazi scalps. They formulate a plot to kill Hitler and the leaders of the Nazi party when they attend the premiere of Goebbel's latest film at a small French cinema. Meanwhile the owner of the cinema, Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), has her own plan to bring about the downfall of the Nazi party. A Jew in hiding she most fears the 'Jew hunter', Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) who hunted down and killed her family and will now also attend the premiere.

Despite taking some licence with historical accuracy, Basterds is surprisingly convincing as a film about the Second World War. There's the occasional slide into spoofery, not least with Mike Myer's scene stealing turn as a British general, but as these scenes are very funny it's forgivable. As ever with Tarantino the humour and bloody violence are brilliantly balanced and for every violent shooting there's a flippant remark or humourous gesture to take the edge off. Despite expectations Brad Pitt isn't even close to being the funniest person in this film, that accolade must go to Waltz's Col Landa, whose every ounce of screen time is a delight. Right from the first tense scene when he talks calmly to a French farmer as Shoshanna's terrified family lie silently under the floorboards beneath him, he is blood-chillingly evil but delightfully theatrical. Some of my favourite moments in the film come from his scenes - the moment where he produces with a flourish a giant calabash and proceeds to calmly smoke it while discussing genocide, his strict instructions to "wait for the cream" when he orders a disguised Shoshanna a strudel, and his look of glee as he pronounces "That's a bingo!" to the bemused faces of Aldo Raine and a fellow Basterd.

However, apart from those treasures there's also the usual sharp dialogue and violent shootouts you would expect from a Tarantino film. These two are combined in the excellent basement scene where a trio of Basterds pretending to be Nazis meet their co-conspirator Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger being fabulous). Cue some delightful fun and games with a gang of drunken (real) Nazi soldiers and then the appearance of an SS officer who immediately rumbles the three fakes, not least because one of them blatantly speaks German with a cut-glass English accent (Michael Fassbender in a brilliant but all too brief appearance). Melanie Laurent channels Uma Thurman as Shoshanna, not quite as hell-bent on revenge as The Bride but with her pale blue eyes, dishwater-blonde hair, and sarcastic tone you can't help but see why Tarantino took a shine to her. Look out for an iconic image in the final scene as her laughing face is projected onto the smoke in the burning cinema - a truly genius shot.

This may be one of my favourite films of the summer and one that I suspect will warrant a second visit over the next few weeks. Go see it!

Health warning: This film may make you crave strudel, fortunately I was in a position to indulge that craving shortly after leaving the cinema; you may not be so lucky.

Bandslam

Following hot on the heels of the latest rash of teen musicals set in high-schools comes Bandslam. Written and directed by Todd Graff and starring Vanessa Hudgens of High School Musical fame it stands out from the crowd in its indie leanings and slightly more sophisticated script. We are introduced to Will Burton, a nondescript kid who is tormented at school because of something in his past, and lives with his mother Karen (Lisa Kudrow). Moving to New Jersey for Karen's job Will attends the local high school and hopes that it will be a fresh start with kids who don't know his family history. Will quickly becomes more popular than he imagined after catching the eye of former head-cheerleader and member of the schools hottest band, Charlotte Banks. Charlotte is a senior but discovers Will's extensive knowledge of music and appoints him as manager of her fledgling band. Will, of course, turns the band around and makes them into a serious contender for the local Bandslam competition (the winner gets a record contract of course). However, while being steamrollered by Charlotte WIll has also caught the eye of emo classmate, Sa5m, the cute but kooky loner who spends most of her time reading, but also has a secret past...

I'm a sucker for these teen/musical films and being a big fan of Camp, Todd Graff's feature film debut (which also stars Twilight's Anna Kendrick in her film debut, fact fans), I expected to enjoy this one. As an added bonus I was the only person who went along to the late showing last night and got the whole screen to myself (same thing happened with Camp, oddly). Like Camp this is full of teenage angst and the struggle with being an outsider, featuring plenty of decent musical interludes. Graff obviously has a lot more money and experience this time round and the whole thing feels much more slick and professional than his first effort, though a couple of plotlines could have done with neatening up. Hudgens is cute, if not entirely believable, as loner Sa5m, and Gaelan Connell and Alyson Michalka bring character and charm to Will and Charlotte. As per usual a lot of the 'teenage' cast are obviously over 20, but that doesn't bother me too much, if only because, at 25, I sometimes feel a little too old to enjoy this films quite as much as I do.

Bandslam is full of fun and definitely stands out amongst the formulaic tween fare on offer this summer, plus the music is hugely enjoyable and the concert scene at the end stands out particularly. There are hints of smart high-school comedies like 'Ten Things I Hate About You' and the occasional nod to 'Grease'. If you like High School Musical but want something a little more intelligent and sophisticated then I can recommend giving it a try.

Brüno

Having enjoyed Borat in 2006 I decided to see Bruno more out of curiosity than anything else. Borat was brilliant and possibly the most hilarious film of that year, even though it did make me feel slightly guilty, and a little grubby, afterwards. Bruno is still funny but relies more on explicit scenes and shock tactics, as well as leaning more heavily on the 'talents' of Sacha Baron-Cohen as the Austrian TV presenter of the title. The trick with Borat was that the US was caught unawares, unfamiliar with Baron-Cohen and his particular brand of humour. After the furore that film created there must be few who are unaware of him and it shows in this one. The funniest moments are the scenes which involve the unsuspecting and focus on exposing the attitudes of the people Bruno meets, rather than centering on Bruno himself. Highlights include - Bruno attempting to bring peace to the Middle East and the humous/Hamas mix-up, Bruno enlisting in the US army, Bruno attempting to get kidnapped by telling a known terrorist that his hair is 'sun-damaged', not to mention the delights of the scenes with the 'gay-converters' who, frankly, deserve everything they got. I can't help but feel sorry for Ron Paul though, who looked like he genuinely feared for his virtue.

Unfortunately, alongside the brilliance is a good deal of smut and quite a few obviously staged scenes. Bruno is much more explicit than Borat, and at times crossed the line. The extensive scene of simulated fellatio got old pretty quickly, though you can't deny Baron-Cohen's commitment to the cause.

Out of the two I heartily preferred Borat - at least it didn't leave me with the desire to expunge certain scenes from my brain. However there are genuinely funny bits so if you can stand extensive full-frontal nudity and 'adult-humour' in spades then by all means give it a go.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Well, this is it, the beginning of the end. This is the book where things really turn grave and the Potter books become much more adult. This is also the book where Ron discovers the joys of snogging, albeit with Lavender Brown. There are no Dursleys in this film as we are plunged into the wizarding world right from the start with a cracking sequence showing the extent to which the Death Eater's dark influence has reached - overspilling into Muggle London. Then we are back with Harry as Dumbledore whisks him off, quite literally, to meet Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent in fine fettle), a new addition to the Hogwarts faculty, who is given one of the best character introductions in the whole series. Then, after a brief visit to The Burrow we are back to Hogwarts and begin to realise the daunting tasks that Harry has ahead of him, which begin in this film and will continue in the final two.

For the first time since the Philosophers Stone I left the cinema at the end of Half-Blood Prince feeling the same sense of wonder I get from reading the books, with none of the disappointment that tainted my viewings of the last few films. David Yates has kept the same style as the previous adaptations, but has managed to retain all of the most important and best-loved bits from the book, and kept up an exciting and brisk pace without feeling like he's rushing through the story. Frankly he's performed something of a miracle and I can't wait to see what he does with the final two. He took a couple of liberties with the story but nothing too horrific and, unlike with previous films, I didn't notice anything important being cut out. I purposefully didn't re-read the book before seeing the film so that I could enjoy it without being too aware of where it was departing from the book, but I did the same with the last two films and still came out feeling that something was missing. Here all my favourite sections are rendered in glorious detail and colour including the Weasley's joke shop, Ron's experiences on the Quidditch Pitch, Luna's lion hat, Lavender's pet name for Ron, Hermione's angry birds, and Romilda Vane's love potion chocolates - which provide one of the funniest sections of the film.

Although there are few new characters in this film you do feel that this year our heroes are growing up and changing. Draco Malfoy in particular has departed from being simply the playground bully to be a complex character with a story arc all of his own. The main trio's acting skills are really developing and Emma Watson in particular, who I thought was rather hammy in the last film, was much more subtle and very funny. There's an especially telling scene where Harry goes to see Slughorn just as a first-year class are being dismissed, and the difference between the wee witches and wizards and a much grown-up Harry is oddly touching. Slughorn, played by Jim Broadbent is also worthy of mention, as he is spot-on - exactly the same characterful, but slightly pitiful, old snob that he is in the books. Jessie Cave as Lavender Brown has much less to work with but is a delight, and I look forward to seeing her in the next two films.

As expected, the final act is harrowing and tragic. I was just waiting for the scene in the cave and it was spectacular, terrifying and heartbreaking, with more than a hint of Frodo and Gandalf in the Mines of Moria. This film gives a fitting end to one of the most important characters in the series and, as in the book, you finish it feeling exhausted, exhilarated, and feeling truly anxious for Harry as he faces his final battle without the support of his mentor. Roll on November and The Deathly Hallows: Part 1!

The Departed

I recorded The Departed when it was on TV a few months ago and this week I found the time to watch it, and I have to say I was massively impressed. The Departed, the only film for which Scorsese has won an Oscar, is set in Boston and begins with two newly minted cops - Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio) who has family ties to the cities most dangerous gangster (Frank Costello played by Jack Nicholson), and Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon) who appears to be as pure as driven snow but turns out to be working for Costello. Costigan meanwhile is persuaded that he can best serve the police force by going deep undercover as a member of Costello's gang, feeding information back to the only two detectives who know who he is. As Sullivan works his way up the force's hierarchy Costigan becomes a more trusted member of the gang, but struggles with his own identity as he has to give in to the violent impulses within himself that he has worked hard to bury.

I never saw this at the cinema as I'm not a fan of gangster movies, or Scorsese, however I remembered everyone raving about it in 2006 when it won Scorsese the gong for Best Director. I now see what all the fuss was about. This isn't just about the usual violent action scenes and the intricate pattern of loyalties, betrayals, and family ties within criminal gangs. The story weaves together both sides - the law breakers and the law enforcers - and exposes the overlap between them. Sullivan appears to be the perfect cop but is utterly faithful to Costello and doesn't seem to have a moments doubt as to where his loyalties lie - Damon pulls off the role with panache, creating a complex character who may appear as smooth as silk on the surface but is obviously furiously treading water underneath. DiCaprio also shines as Costigan and this is further proof that he has escaped his pretty-boy image of the 90s forever. Costigan is a tortured soul who manages to break free of the criminal society he grew up in, only to be plunged back into it as an undercover cop. It's all too easy to see why Madolyn (the police psychiatrist that Sullivan is dating) falls for his mixture of vulnerability and determination.

Apart from these two there is also a powerhouse performance from Nicholson, who I'm not a huge fan of but whose idiosyncratic acting style and sense of humour somehow works to make Costello a bad guy who's at turns terrifying and hilarious. Mark Wahlberg and Martin Sheen are also very funny as Queenan and Dignam, providing light relief at the same time as being key players in that they are the only people who know that Costigan is undercover.

This film really has the whole package though - apart from the brilliant cast the story is clever and complex without being alienating, the script has moments of true genius and is peppered with enough profanity to surprise your granny, and the soundtrack also is very cleverly used, combining contemporary tracks with some surprisingly hard-hitting classical pieces. Despite being over two and a half hours long I didn't want to stop watching. Every part of the film is fascinating, hilarious, or wracked with tension - Scorsese has trimmed away any spare scenes or lines of dialogue to leave us with a film that far outstrips the rest of its genre (in my humble opinion) and enabled me to see why it is that Martin Scorsese is so revered as a director.

Public Enemies

Public Enemies is a biographical account of the life of John Dillinger in the years when he was marked as 'Public Enemy no. 1" by the newly formed FBI, headed up by J Edgar Hoover (smarmily portrayed by Billy Crudup). Dillinger, played by Johnny Depp, was put in jail for 8 years after robbing a grocery store in his early twenties. Resentful of his lengthy sentence Dillinger used the time to learn from more seasoned criminals and, when released, began his vendetta against the system that took away so many years of his life. Dillinger springs a choice selection of friends from the jail and they form a gang which, though members came and went, remained under the control of Dillinger and carried out a string of successful bank robberies. Because Dillinger only robbed large banks he was seen as something of a hero figure by an economically struggling America. He was taking money from the Government and the system, not from individuals. He also managed to carry out his crimes with relatively little loss of life, which further enamoured him to the public. However his popularity would only infuriate the FBI - Hoover charged Melvyn Purvis, one of his best agents, with tracking and catching Dillinger and his gang. Purvis, here played by Christian Bale, is quiet and methodical and places some of his most experienced colleagues on the case, against the wishes of Hoover who, in the interest of good PR, wanted a force populated by good-looking young men.

Despite knowing next to nothing about Dillinger, and not being a fan of gangster movies in any era, I was compelled to see Public Enemies because of its format. Director Michael Mann has made a bold choice in shunning the conventional celluloid and instead using hi-def digital video to shoot his movie. Having seen the trailer I was intrigued - why would a big budget film with big-name stars and a well known director be shot using a format that is normally chosen for its low cost? Having seen it I kind of understand Mann's choice though I can't say I fully agree with it. It gives the whole film a documentary-ish feel, and the hi-def means that the well-known faces of Depp and Bale look unusually naked and exposed without the glossy patina of film. This only adds to the movie's bleak and realistic style. However, in my opinion, the format can't cope with the fast action scenes and some of the camera moves were incredibly blurry which made some sequences feel amateurish. For some of the more artistic scenes - the sequence at the airstrip with the reporters and the flares illuminating the scene - it works a treat. This is a personal dislike, but one that I find distracting. I had the same problem with 'Dogville' - I'm just too enamoured of the glossy world usually presented on the big screen. I don't want my films to look too much like real life.

Despite the format Public Enemies is an educated and well-crafted film with a whole flock of recognisable actors. Marion Cotillard is luminous as Billie Frechette and David Wenham, who seems to be in everything at the moment, is in excellent greasy bad-guy mode as Pete Pierpont. I very much enjoyed the first hour, and the final half hour, but this film has a very saggy mid-section. The shootout sequence at Little Bohemia Lodge is too long and, owing to the DV format, confusing to watch as it's very difficult to see who anyone is. I think I also struggled to keep up with the many characters as we get no back-story or proper introductions. Frechette seems to be the only character we are given any background information on. Perhaps if I were more au fait with the history I would find it easier to keep up but without those hooks I found it difficult to empathise with the characters. This film is a snapshot of a life lived in the public eye, but it really doesn't tell us any more about who John Dillinger was, what motivated him, and what he thought about his reputation as a 'celebrity criminal' than the newspapers of the time would have done.