Especially for Nikolai - a late review of ZOO - an intelligent look at inter-species erotica

One of Nikolai's favourite arguments is to question why bestiality is illegal. Why should it be illegal for you to pleasure, say, a cow? "Oh, but the cow can't consent!" I hear you cry. But Nikolai would respond that the cow can't consent to being killed and eaten either. So why is it worse to pleasure a cow than to kill it? Is society being hypocritical or at least inconsistent in its attitude to different types of human-animal relations? Finally, Nikolai gets a documentary that makes his case. It's intelligent, sophisticated, and extremely careful not to be lurid and unintentionally funny.

Director Robinson Devor' explores these issues by interviewing zoophiles living in North America. He manages to get breathtakingly candid footage of men describing how they came to realise they were attracted to animals and how they reconciled that with their preconceptions of "right" behaviour. He also explains how you go from thinking about it to actually doing it. The men would meet via the interent, find increased confidence among like-minds, and then finally meet on a ranch to, basically, have sex with horses.

When a zoophile died from a perforated colon, the police were called in, the zoos activities were exposed and the law was quickly changed to make zoophile activities illegal in Washington. Ironically, a well-meaning vet put down the horse to prevent it from being "abused" again.

ZOO played Sundance and Cannes 2007 and was released in the UK in May 2007. It is available on DVD.

Nik points to this comment on INDY 4..

THE SIMPSONS MOVIE - see it for the genius that is SPIDER-PIG!

This review is brought to you by guest reviewer, Nikolai, who can usually be found here:

The Simpsons Movie is a hugely quotable, laugh-a-minute riot, that'll leave fans of the Simpsons ultimately unsatisfied. Its plot is shallow, weak, barely worthy of a 30 minute episode, and far too focussed on the Simpsons family (and especially Homer) at the unfortunate exclusion of other characters. Those of you expecting some sort of extravaganza - a tour-de-force of the Simpsons - will be disappointed, and left feeling ultimately empty and hollow as I was. That said, it's a very watchable and funny movie - especially for the first half hour - and well worth the tenner you'll be paying to get in.

This film has been 10 years in the making. The Simpsons Movie website was purchased in 1997 - and they've been planning ever since. Given that timescale, it's more than a little disappointing that the movie runs out of genuine ideas and plot only 30 or 40 minutes in. From then on, up until the final 5 or 10 minutes, it relies on rehashed plots and rehashed jokes from the TV series. The film slowly descends in the second half from being a self-referential laugh riot, to a serious family soap opera interspersed with the occasional joke.

But then, who's suprised? The Simpsons franchise has only been occasionally funny for the last 3 or 4 series - with jokes and plots being recycled from a bygone era of success. I'd hoped that the film would come up with some fresh ideas to revitalise the franchise, as had South Park Bigger, Longer, Uncut. But it didn't - rather it amplified the same unseemly trend as its TV counterpart - focussing more and more on Homer Simpson gags - at the expense of the other characters, and other plot lines.

Even Homer's family suffer. The Lisa plotline in the film is totally and completely pointless - and a re-hash from countless other episodes. The Bart plotline is similarly rehashed (from at least 2 episodes) and is, if anything, less believable than Lisa's. Marge doesn't have an independent plotline - and the other characters only get brief cameo nods - without actually contributing substantially to the film. As if to typify this "opportunity missed" theme, the use of Arnie as a character is completely wasted - the scenes in which he appears are neither funny or satirical - they're just bleak, and come across as patronising liberal social comment.

It's strange actually, when I left the cinema I'd expected to be much less critical of this movie. But the more the minutes passed, the more empty I felt about this effort. A film that'd shown so much promise in the first 20 to 30 minutes had ended up delivering only as much plot as a single TV episode - absolutely no character development whatsoever - and less involvement from non-Simpsons characters than your average 7pm slot on Sky One. And even given these constraints, much of the potential within the plot was left unexploited - making way for a series of shallow and unsatisfying gags.

Don't get me wrong - this was, for the most part, a very funny movie. You'll laugh a great deal, especially if you're new to the Simpsons, or not much of a fan, and therefore you haven't seen it all before. And even if you have, it's worth the admission just for having seen it, and for all the genuinely funny one-liners and physical comedy. But if, like me, you've been following the franchise since its inception - you'll find this an ultimately hollow experience, which in many ways typifies what's gone wrong with the show.

This is not the "South Park" style rebirth I was looking for, and unless Groening and co. can find some new and fresh ideas pretty damned quickly - this 90 minute episode could be the long, drawn out death knell for the franchise. That would be a real shame - they deserved to go out with a bang.

THE SIMPSONS MOVIE is on release in the USA, Belgium, Egypt, France, Indonesia, the Philippines, Argentina, Australia, Chile, Croatia, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Malysia, New Zealand, Portugal, Serbia, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, the UK. It opens in Austria, Canada, Colombia, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Mexico, Norway, Panama, Spain and Venezuala. The movie opens on August 3rd on Denmark and Poland and in Hong Kong, Hungary, South Korea on August 9th. It opens in the Netherlands and Russia on August 16th and in Brazil on August 17th. It opens in Greece on August 30th, in Italy on September 14th and in Japan on March 1st 2008, which seems a bit randomly late doesn't it?!

You can tell they started filming PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END without a finished script

Unlike director Gore Verbinski, I am going to keep my review of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END short, structured and to the point.

Positive aspects:
1. Handsome production values;
2. Plentiful funny sight gags;
3. Occasional witty dialogue;
4. Admirably restrained handling of the Keith Richards cameo;
5. Acc. to Nik, an ending that "twisted and turned so much, and was so laughably stupid", it was rather fun.

Negative aspects:
1. A labyrinthine plot that is near impossible to follow and therefore to care about;
2. A plot so full of random shit and plot lines that the film-makers don't have time to take each strand to fruition;
3. Johnny Depp slipping into self-parody;
4. All other actors wooden or on auto-pilot;
5. Chow Yun-Fat's incomprehensible English;
6. Misplaced political allegory in opening scenes and in Keira Knightley's absurd "I have a dream" speech near the end;
7. A bloated, indulgent run-time;
8. Markedly less light-hearted and funny than the original movie;
9. Absurdity of Jerry Bruckheimer peddling a movie wherein the audience has to sympathise with renegade freedom-loving pirates (who are bound by an iron-clad Pirate Code, by the way) as opposed to the capitalistic, "big business" Hollywood studio, I mean, East India Company!

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END is on global release.

APPENDIX: An email exchange.

Bina007: You're remarkably positive about your experience given how shite it was.

Nikolai: Well, you see, somehow the film retained a charm. Probably because it was so unpolished. It was like being at a dress rehearsal. You don't expect the play to be good, and you feel for the actors personally when they get their lines wrong and shit. You think, awww, Johnny Depp, you're making it up as you go along aren't you? And then at the end of the film, and I mean the last 5 - 10 minutes, they'd almost recaptured what made the first one great! And it's like - fuck - why couldn't the last 2.4 hours have been like this? And what happened in dead man's chest? Why did they have to embellish a simple formula that worked with all this dumb-assed CGI and stupid baddies and unbelievably intricate plots sub-plots double-plots and wank. So yeah, I had some sympathy for the film - in the same way as I have sympathy for a lame beggar trying to walk down the street to get to a better begging station. Capiche?

SPIDERMAN 3 - in which Spidey jumps the shark

SPIDERMAN 3 was a big event in Bina-world. I'd arranged a posse of like-minded individuals to go see it at the big fat Odeon in Leicester Square. There's nothing like a packed house of fans cheering the opening credits and laughing at all the gags - it's popcorn entertainment at its best.

The opening hour was fine. Peter Parker was back, even more nerdy that usual and a little self-satisfied at Spidey's popularity among New Yorkers. Sure, his best mate Harry wasn't speaking to him, believing Spidey had killed his dad. And his girlfriend Mary-Jane was getting panned by critics in her new Broadway show. Oh, and there was that annoying photographer, Eddie Brock, trying to muscle in on a staff job at the Daily Bugle. But basically, Peter was okay, the film zipped along happily and the higher quota of comedy was fun. In particular, there was some broad physical comedy in a restaurent scene where Peter attempts to propose to MJ.

But around half way through bad things happen. And I'm not just talking about the meteoric slime that attaches itself to Spidey and brings out his aggressive nature. Sam Raimi - a man whose judgement has previously been impeccable, simply lets Spidey jump the shark.

By which I mean that the ueber-confident "black" Peter Parker strutts down the street spoofing Saturday Night Fever. Raimi makes Spidey look bad-ass by making him wear his fringe forward and givin him black eyeliner! He dances with Gwen Stacey in a jazz club spoofing Jim Carrey in The Mask. The humour is broad and it really works. I laughed myself silly. But I was laughing AT the movie, and worst of all, I think Raimi et al were laughing at the movie too. They were sending the Spidey iconography up. Going for cheap laughs also totally destroyed the emotional credibility of the franchise. By the time we'd been through Tobey Maguire's moody teenager impression I was in no mood to hear him pontificate about moral choices and forgiveness, and I certainly wasn't emotionally invested in the movie's ending. An ending which, by the way, rivals LORD OF THE RINGS for its inability to pull down the curtain.

So, SPIDERMAN 3 still has all the cool CGI stunts, and some decent turns from Kirsten Dunst, J K Simmons and Bruce Campbell. Thomas Haden Church is perfectly cast as the Sandman - he has such sympathetic eyes you can't help feeling for him. There's also a woefully brief cameo role from Topher Grace as Venom. Venom is such a great character - a complete bastard - and Topher Grace gave such a fantastic performance that he should have had more screen-time or a movie where he was the only villain. Tobey Maguire proves he can play comedy. I just wished he hadn't proved it in this film. And I remain unconvinced about James Franco's ability to pull off a serious dramatic role.

Overall, I was highly disappointed. As were Nikolai, Movie Matt, Richard and Alan, who'd come all the way down from Edinburgh for this, the first Yippee-Kay-Yay Meet Up. (Although Matt thought it would be a fun night out for kids.) Swedish Philip also gave it the thumbs down. He makes the brilliant point that he expected Spidey 3 to be the most dark and psychologically penetrating given that it featured the Black Spidey. He was expecting the mood to be more BATMAN BEGINS than Broadway Musical. Swedish Lizzie thought it was "utter crap" (although she's so generally amiable and looked so happy I mistakenly thought she liked it). Ken and Graham thought it was okay (see comment below), John kind of enjoyed it, but John thought it ripped off SUPERMAN too much. (I agree. Over-wrought religious imagery up the wazoo, let alone a ridiculously cheesy shot of Spidey in front of the Star-Spangled Banner.) Rav liked it but thought it ripped off THE MASK and Stoogy actually thought it was better for the first one! So out of 12 "votes", we have 7 Nays and 5 ayes.

SPIDERMAN 3 is on global release.

AFTER THE WEDDING/EFTER BRYLLUPPET - Nik's best film of 2006 AND 2007!

This review is posted by guest reviewer, Daniel Plainview.

It's important, in any movie review, to cut to the chase quickly, for those who do not plan to read past the first paragraph. So, to put it succinctly, this is the best film I've seen this year. Since it's not been up against great competition, I should add that had I seen it in 2006, it would still have been the best film I had seen that year too. Susanne Bier (BROTHERS) has outdone herself here in directing an understated yet moving, contentful, and absolutely captivating drama, that takes the viewer on a voyage with the characters that they won't soon forget.

Even had the plot not been as thick as it was with suspense and raw human emotion, this film would have been worth seeing for the acting performances alone. Mads Mikkelsen (CASINO ROYALE, PUSHER) outdoes himself as the central character Jacob; quietly spoken; intense; a man of few words. Sidse Babett Knudsen (Helene) and Stine Fischer Christensen (Anna) make for excellent co-stars, skillfully weaving the complex relationships that the movie portrays and making them more real, more tangible. But even given these superlative performances, Rolf Lassgård as Jorgen (father of Anna and husband to Helene) simply steals the show. I defy anyone not to be moved by the awesome power and sheer humanity of his acting - in fact I think his performance alone makes the film worth seeing again.

And indeed, that is perhaps the greatest triumph of the film, that it's worth seeing again. The plot unravels in such an intense and clever way that despite the relative simplicity of the central concept, and the fact that there are no clever Memento or Pulp Fiction-like plays with chronology, you are nevertheless constantly re-evaluating earlier scenes, the emotions of the players, the development of the characters, why they reacted the way they did, how they must have been feeling given what was going on inside them. Of course there is no "inside them", they're only actors, but such is the stark realism of this film encapsulated not only by the acting but by the sensitive camerawork and subtle score, that the scenes, the emotions, the stories become completely real to the audience.

I suppose I ought to be balanced in this review, and to say that this won't be everyone's cup of tea, for a very good reason. After the Wedding is an intense experience - one that is emotionally draining in a way other films are not. You come out of the cinema feeling as if you've gone through not quite an ordeal, but a journey with the characters. So much has happened, there's so much to the film; so many emotional highs and lows; so many twists and turns and surprises; so much drama, and pain. This is not by any means light viewing, and I wouldn't recommend it as a popcorn muncher.

But it does set the bar as far as future releases for this year are concerned. It is a sad comment on modern cinema that, for the first 40 minutes or so, I sat in the cinema expecting the plot to unravel in a 2-dimensional way, with goodies and baddies, a linear plot, a hero, a anti-hero, and a simple happy hollywood ending. Even though I say it again, realism is the catchword in this film - it avoids the melodrama of hollywood, the paint-by-numbers morality of Jungian archetypal characters, and the triteness of a clean, happy and sown-up ending. After the Wedding exceeded all my expectations, repeatedly confounded my cynicism, and finally conquered my heart. I laughed, I cried, I fell in love and out of it, and I am left with only one option: to heartily recommend this same experience to you.

AFTER THE WEDDING - ETER BRYLLUPPET opened in Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands and Italy in 2006 and in Greece and Germany earlier this year. It is currently on release in Belgium, France, and the UK. It opens in Poland next week and in the US on March 30th.

P.S. BINA007 wholeheartedly concurs with this review.

A GUIDE TO RECOGNISING YOUR SAINTS - six reasonably interesting characters in search of a plot

This review is posted by guest reviewer Nik, who can usually be found here.

I just went to the Barbican Cinema website to look up the name of the film I am reviewing. That's not a good start my friends. A Guide to Recognising Your Saints is a film set on the tough, mean streets of New York where four boys, including our lead character Dito (played by Shia LaBeouf), have to live and survive - grow up and learn how to be men. But after all that's said, this film is really about Dito's personal voyage in managing his relationships with his friends, his girlfriend (Rosario Dawson), and ultimately his love-hate struggle with his father (Chaz Plaminteri). And isn't that the universal story?

Well, no, it's not the universal story unless you bother to inject a plot, which director Dito Montiel conspicuously fails to do - conspicuous given that the film is supposed to be autobiographical. 98 minutes I sat there, curtain went up, popcorn went down, that's all that fucking happened. Even sporadically good acting from the likes of Martin Compston for example (playing Mike, a young Scottish lad who befriends Dito) cannot save the movie - mainly due to the fact that the script is pretty patchy, and that nothing actually happens.

Worse, the characters aren't even all that entertaining. The main character Dito, in both young and old (Robert Downey Junior) forms, fails to inspire anything but ire from the audience, as he whines and angsts like a girl about his life - and consistently makes blonde decisions and comments. Furthermore, the cinematography, which the brochure handed to me as I entered the cinema informed me was "experimental", just jarred - and the little "artistic" touches (like each character introducing themselves to camera during the film) were insulting and facile.

I've panned this one, and rightly. There were few saving graces, the movie was boring, poorly scripted, up itself, and completely without merit either as art or entertainment. The best that can be said is that it was slightly better than Epic Movie, which has now replaced Analyse That as my baseline for shite. Save your money. Stay away.

A GUIDE TO RECOGNISING YOUR SAINTS played Venice and Sundance 2006 where it won the Best Director (Drama) and a Special Jury Prize for the Ensemble Cast. It was released in the US and Australia in 2006 and in Turkey in 2007. It opens in the UK today and in Greece next week. It is available on Region 1 DVD.

A bipolar review of GHOSTS

In 2004, 23 Chinese illegal immigrants drowned while picking cockles on the English coast in 2004. It was an uncomfortable moment for the British public. No-one likes to think that the low, low prices in their local supermarket ultimately rely on indentured labour.

But as Nick Broomfield's documentary-style movie unfolded, I cringed. It was so ham-fisted. Subtitles telling us how poorly paid the Chinese workers are; footage of the immigrants being sealed in claustrophobic concealed apartments in trucks for six months from Beijing to London; the directorial choice to focus on a photogenic young Chinese woman as the protagonist; let alone the cute little baby she leaves behind to earn money doing hard labour in England.....the whole thing was incredibly patronising and emotionally manipulative. And this is where we find Nik at the end of the film. Standing on Shaftesbury Avenue and telling me that the movie was patronising liberal wank that made him so angry it actually made him feel less sympathy for the cockle-pickers.

Much to my surprise, while I can see exactly why Nik reacted in the way he did, I had a very strong emotional response to the film. It began when I started to really like the character of the leader of the gang: a harsh but rather funny man who likes to sing and make fun of the thuggish white landlord. The visceral impact of the film intensified during a scene where the Chinese immigrants are subject to racial abuse and thuggery on the beach at Morecambe Bay. It had been a bad day. British TV audiences had seen bullying and ignorant thuggery for real all week and in this film we had an another example of it on the large screen.

But whatever the reason, GHOSTS had a profound impact on me. It made me see the story and the people behind the headlines and it compounded my general disappointment with the ignorant mob culture that infects modern British life.

GHOSTS played London 2006 and is on release in the UK. It will play Sundance 2007.

ROCKY BALBOA - the man, the legend

This review is posted by guest reviewer, Nik, who can usually be found here.

Many of you have doubts. I know you think this franchise is over. You're wondering how he can pull it off at 50-something. You've been hurt by jibes about Rocky in a zimmer-frame. You've lost faith. But my friends, it's not about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can get hit, and still keep moving forward.

He used to be the plucky underdog from the mean streets of the big city. But he took on the champ and he beat him. He used to fight for America, but single-handedly ended the cold war. And now he's fighting age itself. Is he doing it for Adrian? Is he doing it to win the admiration of his prodigal son? No. He's doing it because fighters fight - because he's the Italian Stallion, the people's champion - and he has something to prove to the arrogant Champ, Mason Dixon: that the last thing to age on somebody is their heart.

My friends, it sounds cheesy. Hell it damn well IS cheesy. But I challenge you to sit through this movie and not have broad stripes and white stars pumping through your veins by the end. He challenges ageism and commercialism in sport. He tells us to be ourselves no matter what. He teaches his whiny son a lesson in fighting back when life knocks you down. He takes a kid from the mean streets and teaches him how to love. His genuflection and biblical references before getting into the ring leave us in no doubt that he's down with Jesus. And his big punches hit so hard, they rattle the Champ's ancestors, and teach him a lesson in pride and self-respect. The only type of respect that means a damn in this world.

This film is a love story. Not in weepy nostalgia for Adrian. Not for Rocky or his family or his washed out friends. Not for the city, or for the sport. But for the flag of the United States of America - and for the freedom to the pursuit of happiness that that flag represents. The winner of the fight at the end - as the camera work so finely shows us - is not Mason Dixon, or indeed Rocky Balboa or his fans - the true winner is determination against the odds; pride in the face of adversity; courage in the face of defeat: the American way.

I don't care what your preconceptions are - this is the franchise back at its very best. Yes it's simple. Yes, it's formulaic and predictable. Same music, same shots, same outcomes. But friends, this is the salt of the earth, and it's not lost any of its saltiness. I'm selling you more than a franchise today, more than a movie. I'm selling you a dream. A dream of a country where people are judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. A dream of a nation where upward mobility and making it are the rewards of hard work, respect for others and respect for yourself. The dream of the new world.

Put a statue of this man on Ellis Island. Put some flowers on Adrian's grave. God bless Rocky Balboa, and God bless these United States of America.

To read Bina007's review, click here.

ROCKY BALBOA is on release in the US, Canada, Israel, Georgia, Australia, Denmark, Finland, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Italy, Norway and Spain. It opens in the UK and Sweden on the 19th and in France, the Netherlands, Estonia and Russia on the 25th. It opens in Belgium on Jan 31st, Iceland and Venezuela on Feb 2nd and in Germany and Austria on the 9th. It opens in Singapore on March 1st, Mexica on March 2nd, Poland on March 9th, Brazil on March 16th, and Japan 21st April.

GABRIELLE - brutal and brilliant chamber drama

GABRIELLE is a merciless depiction of a strained marriage, based on a novella by Joseph Conrad and brought to the screen by outstanding French director, Patrice Chéreau (LA REINE MARGOT). Brilliantly designed, photographed and acted - it is an intense and memorable costume drama complemented by a fascinating score. However, it will not be to everyone's taste. I loved it, but it left Nik cold.

The story itself is nothing new. it features a rich middle-class man whose social class and upbringing have taught him to value impassivity, propriety and respectability above all else. He is not a bad man so much as a limited man, and he chooses his wife by limited criteria. Will she prove an elegant hostess - faithful, stable, predictable - an ornament to his carefully appointed his? In these stories, the wife always marries the husband aware in some sense of the bargain she is making - a passionless life in exchange for comfort and dependability. But then comes the regret and the moment of rebellion. This is the story that forms the backbone of novels from Anna Karenina to The Forsyte Saga. In general, I have a great appreciation for this genre - Anna Karenina is my favourite novel after all. However, if you know that you don't have a taste for this sort of domestic drama, then you should probably avoid GABRIELLE, despite the fact that it is a superior example of the genre.

In GABRIELLE, the familiar story is situated in pre-WW1 Paris and is filmed like a Three Act drama within the confines of a sumptuous house. The husband is a rich financier who lives in this beautiful but claustrophobic house filled with classical busts under glass domes. We meet him as he walks from the train to his house. He has the fine clothes, confident swagger and cigar that denotes the self-satisfied man of property. But it is credit to Pascal Greggory's nuanced performance that he does not appear odious - rather, in some way, pathetic. The husband buys a small newspaper and so his salon becomes wider in scope - he is suddenly entertaining radical journalists and less "safe" characters. With dizzying camera-work we see a typical Thursday At Home. The conversation is vapid, the people unbearable and yet the evening is a success! It seems insupportable. And so it is. For the husband returns home the next day to find a note from his wife, played by Isabelle Huppert telling him that she has left him. However, she returns some hours later.

The "second act" of the movie follows the husband and wife in their private space. He has to re-examine everything that he took for granted and come to a slow realisation about his feelings for his wife. She has to summon up the ability to tell him why she left him. These scenes - especially one over the dinner table - are absolutely excruciating to watch because the acting is so powerful and the characters so deliberately malicious and yet genuinely hurt. The "third act" sees the same couple navigate another public Thursday At Home and the consequences of moving beyond the boundaries of impassivity.

GABRIELLE is, for me, a misnomer. The movie is as much about the husband's emotional journey as the wife's and, perhaps surprisingly given some of his actions, I found him to be a more sympathetic character. The story may be familiar but the movie feels new because of its intensity and because of the daring camera-work. While structured in some ways like a theatre piece it is undoubtedly "cinematic" in its use of the camera, editing from black and white to colour, use of subtitles. The orchestral score in particular is very fine - and is used in an obvious and deliberate manner rather than as a subconscious manipulative device to underline the emotions we are meant to be feeling.

So, it should be clear that I think that GABRIELLE is a very fine movie. However, more than usually, the "genre warning" applies. But if you do like psychological domestic drama, then this is a superb example of the genre.

GABRIELLE played Venice and Toronto 2005 and opened in continental Europe and the US earlier this year. It opens in the UK on Friday and is available on Region 1 DVD on December 19th.

BABEL: Let's challenge prejudice together

This review is brought to you by guest reviewer, Nik, who can usually be found here.

This is the last in the trilogy of films by Alejandro González Iñárritu starting with the Bafta winning AMORES PERROS, followed by 21 GRAMS, and completed by BABEL - a film of interwoven characters and relationships spanning the globe, from the Mexican desert, to the sunshine of San Diego, the wastelands of Morocco, and the buzzing nightlife of Tokyo. The locations are exotic, the scenery and visuals are quietly stunning, and despite the sarcasm of the title of this review, this film doesn't think too much of itself, or withdraw up its own arse.

In fact, the beauty of the film is that it so carefully treads the thin line between being in your face, paint by numbers morality - and being so understated that it becomes arthouse wank. It makes a simple point simply - and beautifully - that it's not so easy to be prejudiced when you have to look a human being - crying, broken - in the face and in the eye. That it's not so easy to condemn when you see acts of self-less human kindness from those who are unlike you - of whom you are initially suspicious and judgemental. This film doesn't pretend to say anything greater - or anything more fundamental or groundbreaking. And it does what it does so well. The acting is powerful, the script is excellent and spans 4 different languages and 4 different cultures with ease. It's well edited - and put together in a seemingly natural non-chronological order - not to make the plot twist at the end, or to be clever, but because it needed to be that way.

That's not to say the film didn't have its downsides - it wasn't quite a work of genius. This may seem trivial, but the musical score - an incessant Spanish guitar - started to grate after a while. It was too heavy handed. And the film probably stretched the point out for too long - although I can understand why all the scenes are in there, and why they're so long - the plot in each story just wasn't substantial enough to justify the running length, and nor were the almost incidental crossovers of the stories. And Brad Pitt looked like he thought he was doing some great community and social good by starring in a film that was mostly in foreign, and wouldn't be screened outside of Canada. Although his performance was good, if slightly 2-dimensional.

Furthermore, I didn't actually identify with any of the prejudices. I like Mexicans, and think they probably do most of the work in California. I don't think all Arabs are terrorists. And I so would have fucked the deaf-mute girl. In fact, thinking on it, what a sweet deal. How's she gonna complain if it's bad? Write me an email? Send me a fucking text message? Imagine it, boning a chick from behind, and suddenly a little scrawled out paper note appears on her back: "harder. and down a little" - class. And anyway, what'll she have to complain about? It's not like she's gonna hear me shouting out someone elses name*.

Having said all that - it was a very good film, and very worthy - it passed the time and it ought to have been made. And while I almost certainly won't be buying it on DVD and have no particular urge to see it again, because it wasn't substantial enough for a second watch, I do happily recommend it to anyone who likes a thinking and sensitive film. My fear is, of course, that this, as with most good art, is only going to be seen by people who already agree with its central points. Sadly the most prejudiced are often the most ignorant - and have little or no access or inclination towards good art, which this film represents. In other words, the people that this film was meant to challenge will be too busy seeing the latest shock flick, or masturbating at home to old episodes of Baywatch.

But all that said, it was a fitting end to the trilogy, and indeed a worthy close of the London Film Festival. And I thoroughly enjoyed it, even though the free popcorn they gave us was so ludicrously undersized. Thanks to Bina007 for the ticket, and thanks in advance to the Royal Association for Deaf People for settling out of court.

*Could all complaints from disability associations or disable people please be directed to nikolai.segura@gmail.com and not to Bina007, who does not endorse any of my jokes, however funny.

BABEL played Cannes, Toronto and London 2006. It opened in Denmark, Italy, Mexico, Sweden and the US last week. It opens in Hong Kong, the Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, wide in the US on November 10th. It opens in Belgium, France, Finland and Argentina later in November. BABEL opens in Spain, Germany and Australia in December and in the UK, Estonia, Latvia and Brazil in January 2007. It opens in Japan in March.

LOVECRACKED: THE MOVIE - so bad it's not even a movie

This review is posted by guest reviewer, Nik, who can normally be found here:

Let me tell you a story. I was once on a night-bus from Glasgow to London. I made the mistake of getting on first, a mistake because then you can't choose who you're sitting beside. An old guy, John, sat beside me on that bus, and proceeded to start touching my leg as he talked to me. I told him to stop, but then a few minutes later he would start again. The bus was full, I couldn't change seats. I told him to stop again. He then pretended to go to sleep, but every time there was a bump in the M6 his hand would jolt slightly closer to my thigh. I didn't sleep a wink. It became known as Big Gay John's Big Gay Busride by my friends.

But had I never met Big Gay John then LOVECRACKED: THE MOVIE would have been the gayest thing that ever happened to me. It is now second only to my Big Gay Busride. This movie is worse, yes worse, than Redneck Hillybilly Alien Abduction. The plot is non-existent. The script is abysmal. There are no characters. The acting is like week old smegma scraped off the wrinkly unwashed penis of a second world war veteran by a saggy prostitute's teeth. It got so bad at some points that I had to turn the sound down so that I could bear watching it. It's not a bad movie - not because it isn't bad - but because it isn't a movie. Rather it's a dried up crusty piece of dog-shit drying in the sun on a pavement that if you bit into you'd find a still liquid centre with some little pieces of sweetcorn that would pop as you chewed them.

That should teach you, never review random DVDs sent to you by companies called "Biff Juggernaut Productions" claiming to be horror comedy. Or any other genre. This was truly execrable. Not even home video quality. Worse than my video reviews for viewabilty and production value. Not even in the category of so bad it's good (like BAD TASTE, or BRAINDEAD). It was so fucking bad that I actually argued with Bina007 on the phone that we shouldn't review it, because even mentioning its name in public would give the film notoriety it didn't deserve - and anyway, wasn't even describing such an undisputed crusting white bead of cocksnot drying on the anal hair of humanity on a public forum a crime in this country? If not, it should be. Bina007 honey, next time, you're reviewing the strange DVDs you get sent. Peace out.

THE PRESTIGE - Christian Bale is ENGLISH!

This review is posted by guest reviewer, Nik, who can usually be found here.

Some people have accused me of being gay for Christian Bale in the past, and chief amongst the accusers myself. And yes, it's true, I am bent for Bale - but there's a jolly good reason. This man simply doesn't get himself involved in anything less that a great movie - his acting performances are always superlative - and the dynamic range of his skills is nothing short of breathtaking. And he has a fucking great body.

That said, I cannot claim that any of these things attracted me to see THE PRESTIGE. In fact, not a single factor in the film's favour weighed on my mind as I collected my ticket from Bina007 at the Odeon West End, since the screening I attended was the "surprise film" of the 2006 London Film Festival, and no-one knew the film title until the opening credits. Before the film, an organiser of the Festival came on stage and asked for suggestions as to what the film might be. A few people did shout "The Prestige". I shouted "Debbie Does Dallas - or am I in the wrong cinema?" That anecdote has nothing to do with this review, I just thought I'd tell you it so that you could fully appreciate my gutter comedy, and how I added to the audience's cultural experience that evening.

But back to the point, it came as no real surprise to me that the surprise film was THE PRESTIGE, and that it turned out to be as good as I'd hoped. After all, a surprise film has to meet the highest standards of excellence so as not to disappoint or alienate a broad cross-section of the audience. And I can assure you, no-one was disappointed.

THE PRESTIGE was, as the magic and illusions it portrayed, captivating from the get-go. The all-star cast including Scarlett Johansson, Michael Caine, Hugh Jackman, and even David Bowie wove a magic spell around a talented script - and had the audience on tenterhooks awaiting the next twist, turn, and pitfall of the plot. The musical score, often overused in such dark and sexy thrillers, was subtle as it added to the tension - barely noticeable but used with great impact just as any good accompaniment is.

The plot itself was tense and thick and thrilling - allowing you to suspend disbelief over those aspects that were genuinely counter-historical or a-scientific - because such aspects were genuinely incidental next to the personal tragedy of the two main characters. Two magicians, played by Bale and Jackman respectively - the former twisted by and prisoner to his art - the other equally twisted and darkly obsessed with a past tragedy in his life, and by the jealous rage and anger at his illusionist counterpart whom he blamed for causing it. There is a tangible homoerotic tension between the two - as their obsessions with their art and with each other tear them and their families and their relationships with women apart. One has the impression of an almost Shakespearian pair of star-crossed lovers taking their lives. The passage of their death marked love being the two hour traffic of the film.

And it is the power of the performances of these two, Bale in particular, that makes the movie. It is astounding, looking back at the movie once the final twist has happened, just how incredibly hard Bale's character was to play to make the scenes believeable. His relationship with his wife was characterised by a struggle between loving his art more than her some days - and loving her more his art on others. Imagine the task for an actor to have to say "I love you" and mean it in some scenes, and the same line but not mean it in others - and each time communicate emotionally which it is to the audience. The subtley of that insincerity - and the finesse with which it is portrayed in THE PRESTIGE - is awesome.

This is a very dark movie. It is a world where obsessive love and obsessive hatred meet in equal quantities - a world of illusion where we are constantly left wondering what is real and what is not. Such a world will not be to everyone's tastes - and if you're looking for comedy or a light touch entertainment, go and see BORAT instead. But if you're looking for superlative acting performances - drama, plot, production values and score that is second to none - and a movie experience that will make you want to come back for more - then this is the only show in town. I cannot recommend it any more highly than that, my friends.

Oh, and there's something I should add. Christian Bale is English!!! It's amazing, he speaks like a bloody cockney in this movie! I think it may have been that that finally exorcised the ghost of Patrick Bateman, a ghost that haunted me when I saw BATMAN BEGINS.

THE PRESTIGE played Rome and London 2006. It opened in Singapore, the US, Hong Kong and Malaysia earlier this month. It opens in Brazil, Serbia, South Korea, Thailand and Venezuala on November 2nd, the UK on November 10th, and in France and Australia on Nov 16th. It opens in Finland and Italy on December 22nd and in Estonia, Belgium, Germany, Iceland, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Russia and in the Netherlands in January 2007. Finally, it rolls into Japan on April 21st.

Bina007 adds: Christian Bale has, to my mind, made some shocking movies, not least SHAFT and some mediocre ones, most recently - Harsh Times. But for every mis-step there are a handful of absolute diamonds. THE PRESTIGE is definitely one of them.

BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN - Jagshemash - Borat hits the ground running

This review is posted by guest reviewer, Nik, who can usually be found here:

Sacha Baron Cohen is a funny funny Jew, and he's sent up America perfectly in his latest movie: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GREAT NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN. His fictional character, Borat, a TV reporter and unintentionally homo-erotic anti-semite from Kazakhstan with his catchphrase "Jagshemesh" - is sent on a mission to the "US and A" to bring back valuable cultural learnings for the improvement of his beloved homeland. Only he's not really a reporter, he's a British comedian - and between very funny scripted scenes of Borat and his producer arguing and wrestling nude - we are treated to some of the best real-life send-up comedy ever seen.

Cohen's genius in this film is to spread his criticism and humour evenly across the spectrum of American socio-politics - from offending a group of stuck up feminists in New York by asking them if it was a problem that women had smaller brains than men - to exposing the ludicrous nature of a Pentecostal service in Texas. From coast to coast, from Republican to Democrat, from liberal to conservative - Borat reveals and satirises every prejudice and idiosyncrasy - from a Rodeo manager who wants to string up gays, to a bunch of drunken "wigger" frat-boys and their unseemly views on women.

The sheer variety of types of humour is also refreshing - it varies from Charlie Chaplin type slapstick to very politically aware satire to good old fashioned stereotyping - and throughout Cohen retains an excellent comic timing, especially noticeable in the unscripted "real-life" scenes. It also goes far further than Borat or any of Cohen's characters have ever gone before - into areas where arrest and/or lynching is a real possibility. It's also incredible to note how famous and how well connected Cohen has become when even Baywatch Babe Pamela Anderson herself - who Borat falls in love with during the movie - is in on the gag. This guy is obviously a hot hot property in Hollywood would now.

But the best characters, as usual, are the American people themselves. From the hysteria of the Pentecostal Church, to the uneasy politeness of the middle-American dinner party (Pastor and all), to the sharp unfriendliness and in-your-face attitude of New Yorkers towards Borat's approaches and kisses - the whole gamut of attitudes and personalities are included in this film. It really is a people watcher's delight. The film does well to depict America as it is - a diverse land with diverse people. It warms the heart to see the friendliness of the little Jewish household that Borat stays in and the politeness of the people who meet him - it shocks us to see the petty prejudices and casual racism of so many - and equally it chills us to see the mainstream evangelical movement as it generally is in the States: sad, insular, peer pressured, anti-scientific, and scarily well connected politically and judicially. The film has as many serious sides as comic moments.

Unfortunately, there's also a serious side to this review. Sadly, many of my American friends will be unable to watch this great film when it is released, even though it has recieved massive critical acclaim thus far, and is being well recieved on both sides of the ocean. That's because the initial release is being slashed from 2,000 to 800 cinemas in the USA - apparantly due to the fact that so few Americans have even heard of Borat, other than in the big cities, especially on the coasts. Or could it be that, this close to an election, noone wants Missouri to be influenced with the cynical connection between evangelical nuts and Congressman? Whatever the case, it is absolutely imperitive my trans-atlantic friends that you and your friends go to see this excellent movie - to encourage a wider release, better publicity and a more educated and aware populous!

If you're an American, this is as essential viewing as Bill Bryson is essential reading - it holds a mirror up to the USA in the funniest and most diverse of ways - treading a wonderful and humorous middle ground from sea to shining sea. It will only further compound the dim view held in Europe of central and mountain America as a place of cultural and social backwardness if it were, through its distaste or obliviousness, to miss such a great great movie about the very country it is part of. Seriously, such a gem shouldn't only be enjoyed in Los Angeles and New York - not only because these places have quite enough culture - but because Kansas needs some love. Borat style.

It opens on November 3rd - my advice is to pre-book your tickets, stock up on popcorn, and prepare to laugh solidly for one and half hours. Until then, Jencooie!

BORAT: CULTURAL LEARNINGS OF AMERICA FOR MAKE BENEFIT GLORIOUS NATION OF KAZAKHSTAN played Toronto and London 2006. It opens in Belgium, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovenia, the UK, Denmark, Estonia, Finalnd, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden and the USA on the weekend of November 3rd. BORAT opens in Singapore, France, Norway, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Russia and Portugal later in November. It opens in Argentina and Brazil in February 2007.

Bina007 adds: More on the slashed screenings: screenings in the US have been slashed because the studio is worried that Middle America will not be able to deal with a Brit taking the piss out of it. You can see why they are worried from the messages on IMDB. One poster named William G Boykin cries out: "We saved Europe from Hitler, and we are repaid with mockery!!" Mr Boykin also is very pleased with his little wordplay in coming up with the following: "A lie-beral elitist who graduated from Cambridge like Sacha Cohen is not qualified to judge me or any of my friends and family members." I only hope Boykin does not speak for the average American. A culture that cannot laugh at itself or take humourous criticism, whether from an insider or outsider sounds more like the Soviet Union than the America we (used to?)know and love.

THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA - Nik's Video Review

This video diary is brought to you by Nik who can usually be found here.

Bina007 adds: I LOVE this movie! I love the character of Zizek. I love the conceit - from Sophie Fiennes? - of inserting him into (!) famous shots from historic film. I loved the chance to wallow in 150 minutes of indulgent discussion about movies. A lot of the content was obvious but occasionally there was a flash of brilliance that changed the way I look at a scene - and I left the theatre wanting to revisit some old classics - notably from Chaplin. Basically, if you love film, you'll probably get a lot out of this documentary. Otherwise, it's a long haul and a highly misleading title. There is no smut on screen.

THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA played at Toronto 2006 and is on limited release in the UK.

CLERKS II - Interspecies Erotica

This review is brought to you by guest reviewer, Nik, who can normally be found here:

Nikolai 3:16 - For I so loved Clerks that I spent my only begotten Saturday evening watching the sequel, that whosoever readeth this blog shall not waste their money but save 2 hours of their life.

Actually, that's slightly unfair, but let's start with the downside, and there's a big downside:

It's no wonder that most of the cast from the original Clerks never got a job in acting again, until this sequel. Clerks II is poorly acted - so poorly that, even in the few places where the script isn't sweaty monkeyballs, it actually makes you want to look away. But don't worry too much about that, because the number of times that the script and dialogue struggle to lift themselves out of the mire sufficiently for the audience to notice the terrible acting are strictly and skillfully minimised by the author.

The "plot", so called, that writer/director Kevin Smith tried to inject into Clerks II in between the comic sequences was so laughably awful, so patronisingly predictable, and so execrably executed that it literally made even the most hardcore Clerks fans amongst us squirm in their seats. Indeed, the "plot" actually seemed to spoil and dull, at least in part, the comic sequences that proceeded it - since rather than making us love the main protagonists more and empathise with their plight - it managed to stir antipathy and distaste at their actions. To make it worse, the film was nothing to look at - the production values were zero - the camera was skewed and occasionally out of focus - this was an amateurish job. Some might say that this was in honour of the original Clerks - but it wore thin.

But having savaged almost everything important about Clerks II, I must admit, there is a plus side. For Clerks fans at least, this was a funny film. Bina007 and I were laughing hard most of the way through - although it should be noted that Professor007, who had never seen or heard of Clerks before, was far less impressed with the comedy. Sure, there were sequences and jokes that simply didn't work (e.g. "One ring to rule them all") - and some that weren't capitalised on at all that could have been explosive (e.g. "pussy trolls") but the sheer number of gags - the weight of comedy - managed to see this film through until the end.

As well as that, the homo-erotic tension between our two heros Dante and Randall was much more pronounced than in the first film - and though I'm sure Professor007 was cringing in his seat - Bina and I thought it was rather cute. They actually made a nice couple, and it would have been sweet to see them kissing at the end, although of course, for the sake of a 15-rating I'm sure, that didn't happen. But happily, the 15-rating didn't stop them from putting beastiality, breasts, ass-to-mouth, drugs and liberal sprinklings of vaginal humour in there. Which is what I paid my 20 bucks to see.

But readers, as much as I loved Clerks - Dante, Randall, Jay and Silent Bob - I can't in all good conscience recommend this film to any but those who saw and loved the first film. It's not that there are that many in-jokes in the sequel - it's just that you already have to know and love the characters, their situation, their idiosyncracies, to really appreciate this movie. Clerks II simply doesn't contain any characterisation, or scene setting, or decent plot - so someone coming to this film fresh, as Professor007 did, will be totally unable to properly appreciate it.

So if like Bina and I you loved Clerks, go and see Clerks II, it'll pass the time and give you some hearty and hard fought laughs. Otherwise, save your money for the destined to be epic "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan". Personally I can't wait!

CLERKS II is already on release in the US, Australia, Israel, Spain, the UK and Iceland. It opens in Portugal, Russia and Italy later this month and in the Netherlands in October. It opens in Hungary in November and Belgium and France in January 2007.

Bina007's Guide to Movie Theatre Etiquette...

Far be it for me to elevate cinema into a Bayreuth closed-doors, hard wooden-benches martyrdom. If you really hate people, just buy a big-ass TV and watch movies at home. But still, is it too much to ask to go to a cinema and simply be able to watch a movie undisturbed? Unlike many of my friends, I don't want to rule the world, or at least govern the UK, but if I ruled movie theatres, this is how it would be done:

1. You can do anything you like while the adverts are running. This can be 25 minutes worth of bilge if you are in a Central London Odeon, so knock yourself out. Makes phonecalls, talk to your mates, make everyone stand up so you can get to your seat.

2. As soon as the main feature starts, NO-ONE should be allowed in the theatre. But as they are, they should at least be polite. Let me give you an example. I am sitting in a movie theatre to see a Bollywood movie. The first twenty rows are completely empty. The back row, which I am sitting in, is fairly full. But there is a space to my right and two space to my left. A family comes in late and the mother says to me "Shift up!". Not, "Do you mind moving one along?" Ordinarily I would have moved, but the gruff rudeness of this command pissed me off, especially when there were rows of empty space in front. Seriously.

3. No-one should be allowed to talk to anyone else. Laughing, gasping with horror, retching etc. are all fine. It's part of the audience experience we all love. And if you are the only two in a screening then all bets are off. But save your high-powered intellectual dissection of the craft till after the show, you moron. Nothing you have to say is so clever and world-changing that it won't survive the wait. I had this with two French guys sitting next to me in the Destricted screening - going on about modern art really loudly. They looked very offended when I asked them to be quiet. Like I had paid to listen to their art-school drivel. I've also sat in movies where one person explains the whole thing to the person they came with blow by blow. The mind boggles.

4. Mobile phone signals should be jammed. I just can't understand why anyone (that's you Nik and Katya) need to send a text or make a phone call during a movie screening. Whatever you have to say just isn't that important. If you were that important you would have a secretary field your calls while you were in the theatre. And you wouldn't be in the theatre anyway. I seriously just do not get why you would spend over ten quid and then not look at the screen. And I find nothing more annoying that seeing little white squares of light in my peripheral vision.

The ultimately insane thing I ever experienced was when a group of teenagers, who could easily have been my idiot younger cousins, came in late to a J-horror movie in the Trocadero. They sat in groups of 3 or 4 dotted around the cinema (which was about 1000 sq ft) and proceeded to call each other on their mobile phones. Jesus Tap-Dancing Christ! I actually fear for the future of this country if we are breeding kids like this. The pay as you go phonecard really is the death of civilisation.

So, all I want to say is this: people, have some courtesy. Treat others as you would be treated. And remember, if you wouldn't do it during sex, then you shouldn't do it in the movie theatre. And if you do make phone calls, talk crap about French philosophy and hassle strangers during sex, then please, please, just get a good DVD rental service.

Thank you.

LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE - more than just a brilliant black comedy

This review is posted by Nik, who can normally be found here:

I didn't think I'd enjoy this film, it sounded hackney'd. In fact, it sounded as hackney'd as a Hackney Cab, driving through Hackney, with a driver saying "wot about dem blacks - facking immigrints". A dysfunctional family goes on an impromptu roadtrip together to find themselves. Fuck me, why not just throw in Hugh Grant and make it a Rom Com? Can't Hollywood formulate something original?

Add to that the fact that Alan Arkin, Toni Colette, Steve Carrell and Greg Kinnear aren't exactly B-movie actors - and you have the potential for a sickeningly sweet, all-American flop of a movie. Suffice to say, despite the rave reviews at Sundance '06, I wasn't expecting to enjoy it much. I certainly couldn't have hoped to enjoy it as much as I did.

But I'm happy to say that LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE was just a great great movie - yet another triumph in the Bina-recommended Hall of Fame. Combine just some absolutely wonderful acting performances, especially the astonishing child part (Olive) played by Abigail Breslin - with a hilarious script - with some gripping insight into the American way of life - and you have the ingredients for a movie that will captivate you and keep you totally spellbound throughout.

I laughed all the way through - not sniggers or giggles - but hearty laughs that made my throat dry. Don't be fooled though - this isn't just a comedy. Far from it - it manages to capture the ridiculousness of life's tragedies - the emptiness of corporate America - the grotesqueness of the beauty pageant - the love of a sibling - the tenderness of a family. And it's as biting as it is funny. As well as that, LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE really is a beautifully shot and beautifully made film - and although it doesn't claim any particularly deep insight about the world, or to have discovered anything new cinematographically - it is nevertheless a deeply satisfying and complete viewing experience.

I don't want to give away any of the plot in this review - this is a plot based film, one that I would almost be retiscent to buy on DVD for fear that it wouldn't be as good the fifth time - so you're just going to have to find out for yourselves. All I can say is that you won't regret it - even if you disagree with its insights, even if you cannot empathise with the situations the characters find themselves in - you'll surely enjoy the comedy, and even if you're humourless, you'll be able to sit back and admire the sheer quality of the acting and the script.

Take £10 from the cash machine, buy some popcorn, and go see this film with the rest of the change. Or if you live in London, take £20 out, and then follow the rest of the instructions.

And this from Bina007: I disagree that this is a beautifully made or shot film. It looks as cheap as it is. But, my god this is a funny movie and it has real balls too. Kudos to first-time feature writer and directors Michael Arndt, Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris. Kudos too to all the cast, not least Paul Dano. He plays the brother in the family and gives an outstanding comic and dramatic performance despite the fact he doesn't speak for a lot of the movie. Like Nik said, go see it today!

LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE is currently on release in the US and France and opens in the UK on Friday. It opens in Italy on Sep 22nd, Finland on Sep 29th, Belgium on Oct 11th, Argentina & Australia on Oct 12th, Spain & Brazil on Oct 20th, Netherlands on Oct 26th and in Germany on Nov 30th.

SALLY GREENE'S RONNIE SCOTT'S - another shamess cash-in

Tuesday 27th June and I'm back at Ronnie Scott's for the first time under the new dispensation. Professor007 - the Austrian jazz fiend - and I were planning on some quality R&B time and I was all about seeing The God-Daughter of Soul, Carleen Anderson. I know that we she does isn't really jazz, but with a musician of that calibre, who's to complain?

Despite the quality of the entertainment, the pre-match vibes were distinctly off. A cursory inspection of the official website suggesting that old-skool haphazard charm was off the menu. Membership has skyrocketed as have the entry fees - £25 for a standard week-day night and the promise that it could double for the top acts. Worse still, you have to cast-iron book with credit-card details in advance. I guess this is fair-dos as you don't want empty tables from people who just don't turn up, but it does prevent those old late night spontaneous visits. But the inflexibility goes further than that. To guarantee getting food you have to pre-book for a two course set menu which pretty much doubles your spend. No more cheap-ass chilli (soaked up alcohol, kept you going till 3 am, job done!) but one of those trendy gastro-pub menus. I wasn't sure if were gonna get food at Bar Italia first, so I booked non-dining seats. From the website we also learn that the old club upstairs is gonna be switched to a chi-chi ultra-exclusive members joint serving, "rare vintage Dom Perignon." Yikes!

Still, there are some upsides - the main act now gets one set startng at 9:45. Last night it finished at midnight. This makes it a lot more feasible to go to Ronnies on a school night and not feel like you've missed out on half the fun by leaving for the last train home. I always used to feel sorry for the main act playing the second set at 1am to a dwindling group of earnest but sleepy fans.

Anyways, on the day itself, Professor007 was closing a deal in Canary Wharf so I was forced to rope in jazz-virgin, Nik or lose the up-front cash not to mention the chance to hear some great soul music. But it's all good. The old norms are re-established: meeting in Bar Italia to check the Spain-France score. The door-men are different - a lot more smoove than usual, but once you get iinto the club it's the same old shake-down at the coat-check.

I feel really old when I get inside the main room - lots of memories of the old place - sneaky visits when we were students, travelling back on the night bus from Marble Arch at 3am - the odd New Year's Eve with George Melly - the day James came up after finals in an Acapulco shirt and sub-fusc. But on the whole, the club looks good. Same old dim lighting, same old black and white photos of jazz greats on the walls. Pretty much the same configuration of tables except the bar has been moved from the left-hand side as you enter to the back wall opposite the stage. And this is where you start to notice the Little Differences, royale-with-cheese-stylee. 'Coz the bar isn't like a pub-bar anymore with waitresses in jeans and t-shirts pulling pints. It's like a bar in a Four Seasons hotel - all dark wood veneers and brushed steel. And then you realise that the staff are all in proper outfits and they don't look like they know who Stan Getz is. You could always get cocktails on the menu but know it looks like they might actually be capable of serving them. The tables don't have those kitsch red-and-white check table-cloths and instead of battered, fringed, table-lamps the new one look distinctly Designed. There are no beer-sodden in-house magazines advertising forthcoming acts scattered on the tables. You have to buy those for two squid fifty now.

We get to our seats are offered a choice of banquette. We can't do the first on account of the fact that it has less legroom than a charter flight. Sally Greene - the new owner - may have upped the seating capacity - but she's clearly counting on a short clientele. Next we order drinks from the all-new menu. It takes the waiter 45 minutes to bring them out and only after prompting. The guys sharing our banquette say the same thing happened to them.

We try to order food but are told that the kitchen is so busy we'll have to wait. So, despite the overt shameless cash-in they are actually restricting the clientele from spending money by a combination of tardiness and policy! The capitalist in me dies a little at the inconsistency. Anyways, after Nik threatens to eat the stage, we get menus and after another half hour wait try to order. Except no-one told us that they weren't serving a la carte - only the set menu! By this course, we'll order anything and do. The food comes after another hour-long wait.

Nik's green-lentil soup is bland, stone cold and came without a spoon! His main was also tepid and bland. My leek and mustard crumble on mash was scalding hot (microwave) and tasted of mash but nothing else. The apple tart was okay - very stodgy pastry and a bit odd to have it served with apple sorbet rather than someting with a complementary taste. Needless to say, this whole process took a long, long time. By this point Nik was fuming and the sheer ineptitude of the service was distracting us from the marvellous music. He called the manager out who cancelled the food and drinks bill and sent over two glasses of indifferent champagne. In fairness, she handled the situation well but it doesn't disguise the fact that the food and service were pitiful.

Overall, I'll go to Ronnies if the acts are good but not on a whim as I used to. We'll monitor the situation. But so far it seems that they've turned an authentic jazz club into a sort of five-star hotel bar with above average music, corporate prices and crappy food and service. Hardly a winning combination. However, I put my faith in capitalism and hope that customers will vote with their feet. I know I will.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III - There's a point at which boldness becomes stupidity

My mate Nik won't see this film because he does not want to enrich Tom Cruise and thence the Church of Scientology. I paraphrase. What he actually said was, "I’m not going to see MI3 on principle. The principle is that Tom Cruise is a cock." While I agree with Nik's sentiment, I have two words for him and all Tom-haters, and those two words are "air conditioning". Yes, summer is here my friends, and when the going gets hot, Bina hits the Odeon.

But enough of that and on with the show. MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III is a half-way decent summer blockbuster. Minimal plot, lots of cool stunts, above-average looking-people, great one-liners. Clearly, it is ridiculous. We are in a world where Tom Cruise can pass himself off as Philip Seymour Hoffman just by donning a latex mask! But that kind of bizarre lunacy is why I love this franchise so much. And, yes, Tom Cruise may seem a tad bizarre when you read the press, but to my mind no-one does mindless action better. We get the added bonus of 1980s nostalgia, most obviously in a scene where Tom rides a motorbike up to a plane on a runway, wearing aviator sunglasses at sunset. I could almost hear "Take my breath away" on the ether.

The plot is beside the point, but for tradition's sake, let me lay it out for you. Tom Cruise reprises his role as Ethan Hunt, a secret agent with a US Government Agency called the IMF. He has quit field work for a training role and a chance at a real life and marriage. However, when his protege is kidnapped, he returns to the field to track down the evil arms dealer, Owen Davian, and secure the return of the dangerous new weapon, codename Rabbit's Foot. And here is where the movie really gets into gear, because we are presented with a host of BADASSES, towit Philip Seymour Hoffman as the evil Davian, Laurence Fishburne as Tom/Ethan's boss and Ving Rhames as Tom/Ethan's side-kick Luther Stickell. These guys steal the show, not least when the hillariously out-of-shape Hoffman kicks the shit out of Cruise. Man oh man, all you Tom-Haters should pay-up just for that vicarious thrill.

But as much as I enjoyed the balls-out ridiculousness of this movie, there is a big problem every time it switches from action to romance. The movie jumps the shark about 35 minutes in thanks to the most stupid, cringe-worthy wedding scene since Four Weddings & A Funeral. Thereafter, every time we get Tom Cruise together with his on-screen wife, you feel the need to laugh out loud. In fact, a supposedly emotional reunion triggered the biggest unintended laugh in the theatre apart from the nauseatingly bad trailor for the latest Bond movie. I know that MI3 is not meant to be a high-fallutin' drama, and maybe I am being harsh to mark it down for making me laugh when I should have been feeling all loved up. But this stuff was so bad it really took me out of my happy, popcorn-tastic vibe. Good action flicks don't deviate from the task at hand. Bad ones have pretensions beyond their grasp. So, like Luther Stickell says, whereas some boldness is required with the stunts and visual effects, there is a point when bold manipulation of the genre becomes stupidity. MI3 may not fall over the line, but it comes too close for comfort.

MISSION IMPOSSIBLE III is on global release.