One does not come away from this movie with a pleasant feeling attached to it. Based on the true story of America's first female serial killer Aileen Wuornos, it is a gritty movie that tries to get to the heart of the matter, with mixed results.

The main problem with the movie is its attempts in contradicting its own title. First-time director/writer Jenkins seems to want you to come away thinking of Aileen as a victim of love -- a tad too formulaic and stereotyped for my taste. It attempts to explain why the killings were done, but falls short of giving more than the usual 'victim of society' vein that viewers brought up on popular media tire of, and the middle-section of the movie in particular feels rather confused and directionless.

It is, however, the actors that really drive the movie forward. Theron's transformation into a hooker is stunning to watch, as she peels away the layers of glamour usually associated with her to give a beautiful performance. As a hooker, she smokes, drinks, and swears her way into a hell that is difficult to comprehend. While Theron gets the accolades, it is Ricci's unjustly-overlooked turn as Aileen's lover, Selby, that gives the movie its heart. She is innocent, selfish, confused, scared, and the relationship between Aileen and Selby is handled with the right amount of reality -- there is no such thing as a perfect ending.

So, watch the movie for the stellar cast, but don't expect to be convinced by why Aileen committed the murders.

Roux -- 8th September 2005

2005/6 has definitely been the year for 'political controversy' in Hollywood. And in spite of opposition from all camps, Spielberg's latest film was released into the quagmire. Inspired by (not based on, mind you!) true events where Palestinian terrorists took 11 Israeli athletes as hostage in the 1972 Olympic games in Munich, the film charts the journey of Avner (Bana), a young Israeli employed to take down each man responsible for the massacre which followed.

I know it sounds trite and tiresome and boring, but this peek into the mind of a man slowly unravelling, a man forced to become a killer against his nature, with everything spiralling out of control. It is a long film, but anything shorter could not have done the film justice. What is particularly irking though, is the importance that people attach to such a film. Of course it is trying to get a message across, but a movie is ultimately entertainment, so slate it if you hated the experience, and then move on. It is a story which anybody could have told, and a very human one too. Especially clever is the way one starts to empathise with Avner's targets, as they are portrayed as being vulnerable, and kudos has to go to Spielberg for not demonising the 'bad guys'.

Having always been a fan of Bana, I was once again swept away by the intensity he is able to display just by a mere glance, as well as the pain which flashes across his face as he is taken further away from his family. Especially heart-breaking is when he breaks down upon hearing his daughter calling him for the first time on the phone, to which he replies 'I am your Papa, remember my voice'. He is aided on by a strong cast, and you feel the pain at each loss which takes place.

A thoroughly enjoyable film, even if it does tend to leave you shell-shocked. However, a word of warning has to be issued: it is a long film, and watch it at a cinema with hard seats at your own peril!

Roux -- 10th March 2006

This latest spin on the tale of Pocahontas is nothing like the Disney one which has become seared in audience's memories. Following the discovery of the new world, settlers are forced to go further inland in their search for space and a new life. John Smith (Farrell) is a captain sailing with civilians, and in the course of his attempt at bartering with the barbarian king, gets to know his lovely daughter, Pocahontas (Kilcher). They fall in love, he leaves, she is heart-broken and eventually marries John Rolfe (Bale), who takes her back to England with their son, where she is an immense success at the court of Charles II.

A gallant attempt at staging an old favourite, Malick's film tells a good story, and must be commended for its comparison of the grime and squalor of the new world with, well, the grime and squalor of the London Docks. More accurately, it depicted a frightening world for both the natives and the settlers, with a gulf of utter incomprehension of each other's ways in between. The movie was 2 hours but felt a lot longer, its random scenes of nature (while admittedly well-suited to the context at times) which came in the way of action taking up much more screen time than comfortable. The voice-over effect just lended to its airy-fairy effect, which started to jar after a while.

Farrell was perhaps not the obvious choice, but he was suitably sullen as his portrayal of leader and lover. Bale never disappoints as usual, but it is Kilcher who stands out with her feisty character and wild abandon. A major gripe with the film is the unfortunate reinforcement of the idea of the noble savage, which although part of each settler's journey, was just that little bit overdone.

All in, an interesting film which is a pleasant way to spend 2 hours. Just make sure you choose a cinema or a sofa which you will be comfortable with, because you will feel the time.

Roux -- 19th March 2006

The original creator of wonderfully macabre and yet strangely human movies Burton has indeed comes into his own right with this amazing rendition of what would happen if X'mas were hijacked by the well-meaning but ever-so-slightly depressed Pumpkin-King Jack (Sarandon). It is a bizarre experience going back to a film Burton made early on in his career, and to see ideas which he begins to experiment with, only to give them full-expression in subsequent films. One can already start to picture the amazing opening sequence from Charlie and the Chocolate Factory when watching the scene with the present production-line, and it is little subtleties like this that makes the movie a complete joy to watch.

So where do we begin the gushing? The storyline is original and complex, dealing with Burton's usual themes of outcasts and characters who are desperate to escape their destiny or place in society. Irony and piss-taking is already in abundance this early on in his career, and while one cannot help but feel that Jack moans a little too much at times about how unhappy he is, we really do care about what happens by the time he sneaks off to X'mas land. With the exception of the (annoying) Boogey-Woogey Man, there are no real villains, and it is only well-meaning and complete misunderstanding that gets in the way of happiness. Life is not black-and-white, although the gothic gloom punctuated with sporadic, mad colours is a nice metaphor perhaps.

The graphics are still fresh and look contemporary, managing to escape the scourge of real-action movies which start to look dated after 10 years. Elfman does a wonderful job with the music again (can the man do no wrong?), combining spunky, witty music with a soul. He has a beautiful baritone that is criminally wasted in other movies.

A complete masterpiece that should not be missed by anybody old and young, and well-worth a watch, especially if you have had the misfortune of growing up between the last viewing and now.

Roux -- 9th December 2005

The problem with taking a well-known classic which has been adapted for stage and film endless times does mean you are setting yourself up for a fall of sorts. Everybody knows the story, and it is rather hard not to make your audience start singing "Oliver! Oliver!" during the famous asking-for-more scene.

Yet, while the latest spin on Dickens's tale is nothing to shout about in terms of direction, it does offer a rich visual feast of a London filled with scum and riches, and brings alive the wretchedness of the poorhouse, the injustice and hopelessness that came along with the glorious Industrial Revolution. The visuals are indeed amazing, the costumes too are a sight, and you can almost smell the piss and rancid beer in the narrow, fog-filled alleyways. Although one cannot help but wonder at the depiction of a London with massive tropical-like storms, which feels more like a cheap atmospheric/dramatic trick.

The acting, though, is faultless. Kinsley has a fresh interpretation of Fagin that works well, with his tender, almost sympathetic regard for Oliver and his hobbling about. The transition from thief-master to broken man is also painful to watch, and you do feel your eyes start to moisten right at the end. The children hold out well on their own, with Clark as a believable, downtrodden Oliver, and Harry Eden as the delightful Artful Dodger. Of course, (Jamie Foreman) as Bill Sykes sends chills down your spine (the one villain that has never failed to spook me every time I watch a different production). Of note too are the pick-pocketing choruses.

As has undoubtedly been repeated by critics throughout the world, it's nowhere near Polanski's best, but that's not saying very much about the actual quality of the film when you have as established a reputation as he has.

Roux -- 24th October 2005

The third instalment in the El Mariachi series, Once Upon a Time in Mexico is a fun movie that doesn't have any pretensions that it is anything more than that.

Antonio Banderas returns as El Mariachi, this time as a broken and angry man, after having seen his wife (Hayek) and child brutally murdered. A new addition to the cast is Depp as the corrupt and mad CIA Agent Sands, who hires Mariachi to make sure the plan by the Barillo drug cartel to assassinate the President of Mexico fails.

If you can indeed keep track of the numerous twists and turns, plots, and sub-plots (including the somewhat superfluous involvement of Sands after about halfway through the movie), you might find yourself being drawn into the cleverness of it all. I, on the other hand, spent half my time trying to work out the various connections, betrayals, counter-betrayals, and loyalties involved in the plot, which does distract from what a good feast for the senses the movie is. As with the majority of Hollywood films, suspension of reality and belief is also recommended.

Banderas is suitably tortured and grim, even as he executes his job with flair and skill. Hayek, comes across as being the token babe of the movie, with no more reason to be on the screen other than to widen the target audience. Depp, on the other hand seems to be enjoying himself to the hilt, revelling in the chance to unleash another unhinged character on us; his impersonation of Marlon Brando in the church is one to watch for.

For one, Rodriguez makes full use of his talents, and that of his cast, putting them to work in terms of music and dialogue (the script was reportedly only 42 pages long). The result is a daring, bold, and sometimes laugh-out-loud movie, which captures the flamboyance and passionate nature of what we have come to believe is the essence of Mexico.

Roux -- 15th August 2005

This is a film which is a testament to the human will. It is also just about the most heart-breaking, spirit-crushing one you will have seen in a long, long time. Based on a real story, Papillon (McQueen) is imprisoned in a French penal colony for a murder he claims he did not commit. While there, he strikes up a mercenary relationship to protect Dega (Hoffman), which gradually deepens into a friendship. Time and again, he tries to escape, and each time he is caught and subjected to horrifying punishments for his attempts. Yet he picks himself up and attempts to escape again.

McQueen shines through as the subtle star of the film, with his tough-talking exterior slowly crumbling while being subject to all kinds of punishments, and the change he portrays by the stiff movement of his limbs, the weariness of his gaze is stunning. He is a man being slowly broken down, yet there is a certain gleam in his eyes as he decides to give it another go. The quiet, fragile determination is heart-shattering. Hoffman too is understated in his role as polar-opposite Dega, and his loyalty but fear is powerful. The closing scenes of them living out their lives as old men, and when they realise the raft they have made is in all likelihood not going to take them any further than the rocks below makes one so sad that tears just fail to come.

A rail against so-called civilisation, the film makes one think carefully about the not-so-distance past, and also of what a man might have in him. Left in the hands of lesser directors, writers or actors, it would have been another cheesefest of how powerful the urge to be free is, but with this film, it is a message that sounds loud and clear.

Roux -- 13th April 2006

Call me weak-minded, call me silly, but this film has put me off McDonald's possibly for life. Spurred on by on recent documentary-films, Spurlock decides to do nothing but eat food from the wonderful menu of McDonald's for 30 days. Before long, his health takes a nose-dive, the scales start creaking, and the girlfriend starts getting annoyed.

This is the first documentary-film I have seen thus far, and what is immediately clear is the effectiveness of such media. It's trite but true that pictures speak more than a thousand words, and even allowing for clever editing and a little truth-bending, the thought of eating just made me feel ill for hours afterwards. Perhaps almost laughable too is the sheer arrogance and frustrating aspect of dealing with the PR office of the company with the golden arches.

Of course, one has to take everything in with a pinch of salt, but if the point of the movie is to make people sit up and notice the amount of junk we are ingesting, then Spurlock has pulled of a rousing success.

Roux -- 12th January 2006

Bewilderment and absolute confusion is the only word I can use to describe my feelings as the credits started rolling. Highly topical in today's tense Middle-East, this is a movie of multiple storylines, of how everything seems to be working towards the complete destruction of the Middle-East, and of the US government's hand in the chaos in exchange for ridiculous profits. CIA agents (Clooney) and shrewd businessmen (Damon) are aplenty as they each work towards their final goals -- whatever that might be.

Maybe it was me being stupid, but half the time was spent trying to work out the various plots and sub-plots that the general message seemed to be completely lost to the audience. Legal and business jargon was spread liberally all over the place, and while good in showing the scriptwriter's clever knowledge of how things worked, perhaps it was foolish of me, with only a student's knowledge of the corporate world and legal terms, to think I might be able to make sense of it.

Yet for all its bewildering nature, it is easy to see why Clooney has been hogging the headlines. He is suitably aged and flabbed up, and it is rather impressive to see him take the plunge into 'serious acting'.

But enough with the sarcasm. I suspect the film would be more enjoyable upon the second watching, and indeed there are elements which are outstanding. The music and editing is snappy and propelling, and the message of political meddling with the world is clear. After all, why else would planes with revolutionary leaders keep dropping out of the skies in South America?

Roux -- 25th March 2006

Winner of this year's Oscar for Best Foreign Film, Tsotsi follows the journey of a young violent criminal, known as Tsotsi (Chweneyagae) -- 'thug' in Afrikaans. When out on one of his crimes, he accidentally kidnaps a baby boy, whom he decides not to abandon and take into his care.

Cheweneyagae is the undisputed centre of the piece, a certain rawness about his youth which is nevertheless made more tragic by the hardness of his expression and the dead look in his eyes. One can believe rightaway that he is immune to pain and hardship. The about-turn that occurs as he struggles to look after the baby, and the fear on his face as he tries to handle the child is heart-breaking to watch, as is his fear and pain at losing the baby.

The movie's edge is helped along by an excellent thumping soundtrack, as well as the tragic landscapes of the slums with steam rising over it. Many a time one is compelled to simply pick up whatever is at hand and throw it at the screen in disgust, that such a thing is allowed to happen, and there were gasps all around when first exposed to the wealth of his victim within their little community. The one thing about the film below par is perhaps the clumsiness of the flashbacks, which attempted but only partially succeeded in explaining his state of affairs.

Thoroughly depressing stuff, no doubt, and should only be watched with a large box of tissues. Yet, this film should raise the criminally neglected profile of films out of Africa, and it is high time we start listening to what they have to say about themselves.

Roux -- 23rd March 2006

Allow me a theory: the reason why the film was rubbished by the likes of the Evening Standard and the Metro is because it hits out against the fantasy-come-true world of the Daily Mail where immigrants and homosexuals are rounded up and 'processed'. Set in a London not too far into the future, a totalitarian government has a firm draconian grip over the country, and into this steps Evie (Portman), who accidentally runs into V (Weaving), a terrorist and anarchist clad in a Guy Fawkes mask with the same goal of bringing down the order.

While Portman puts on an admirable (if sometime shaky) English accent and has her moments, it is Weaving's turn as V which is the best treat of all. In spite of being hidden behind an inflexible mask, his voice is powerful and vulnerable at the same time, having a magnetic presence that always draws you to him. And who can forget his opening speech? It is ironic that in spite of being the actor with the highest box-office takings (the Matrix and Lord of the Rings trilogies having seen to that), people have only just started to take note of him. It is both a pity and a blessing that his face is never seen (although a short cameo in the form of a bomb-diffusion expert seemed possible), because he remains shrouded in mystery, while at the same time has room to demonstrate how one can act simply by the power of a voice alone.

It is thus a thoroughly enjoyable, romping good film, where you find yourself cheering for a cause, and filled with the doom that V seems to have chosen right from the beginning when he orchestrates his plan for vengeance. Is there a message at the end of it? Likely, but if you ignore the political overtones (I am told people get turned off by this and I wonder why) and watch it as pure entertainment, you will soon find yourself asking for more.

Roux -- 27th April 2006

I confess: I had to be dragged to watch this movie. And I admit I was a fool to have resisted for so long. The movie about crack-team Wallace & Gromit's mission to stop a manic wererabbit from destroying the town's vegetables is actually one of the best rides of 2005.

First-off, the animation is bright to the point of being cutesey, completely different to what Burton movie buffs are used to, yet strangely appealing. Visible fingerprints just lends another touch of fun to the movie, and you do get a genuine kick out of watching them spring to life. The jokes are funny, spot-on, and quite a piss-take on society in general, while at the same time managing to keep alive the nature of traditional English village life.

It doesn't try to be clever, but there are very subtle, intelligent jokes (and so many sexual innuendos that the 'G' rating is very brave indeed) that tickle the funnybone. The story too is engaging and hilarious, but at the same time manages to be a whodunit in its own right. The voice talents are strong in their own rights, with Bonham Carter in particular providing many laughs with her overblown English lady.

Short but sharp, hilarious and witty, this should be on everybody's X'mas DVD list.

Roux -- 27th November 2005

In case you were wondering if there were indeed any movies that I watched and did not gush over, here's one to correct that impression. Set in the true heartland of America, it follows the pointless existence of Gilbert Grape (Depp), a young man living with his ridiculously overweight mother and mentally disabled brother (DiCaprio) struggling to get out of life in the claustrophobic pit as he tries to hold his family together.

The story is confused and at times feels rather pointless, and crawls on at a sometimes-excruciating pace. Even the climax feels anything but, and I often wonder if this is one of those films stuck somewhere the wastelands between artsfilm and Hollywood. We feel as frustrated as Gilbert, not always for the reasons intended by the makers, no doubt.

However, all is not lost, as it serves as an excellent showcase of Depp's and DiCarprio's acting talents. DiCarprio in particular is very enlightening to watch, even though after the novelty wore off, one could not help but think that he is stuck on a repetition loop, no thanks to the script. Lewis as Gilbert's love interest Becky is plain annoying, and her attempts at being kooky does not gel at all.

Perhaps I am being rather harsh, and it is a simple movie trying to make a point about the family and living in an American small-town.

Roux -- 19th November 2005