What have we got?

• A story based on real events: the Snowtown murders.
• The director’s first feature, Justin Kurzel.
• A magnificent performance by Lucas Pittaway (Jamie) and Daniel Henshall (John Bunting).
• An intimate, realistic portrait of the characters.
• Brilliant cinematography.
• A hard, dark film to watch.

What haven’t we got?

• A conventional film.
• A completely explained story (it takes many facts for granted).
• A cast of experienced actors.

How does it turn out?

A dark film, hard to watch and above all hard to follow if you aren’t familiar with the case. Far from sensationalism, it focuses on Jamie’s perspective and on how he experienced his relationship with the killer. His mother’s illness, his brother’s abuse, his bleak prospects… seem to be suffocating him. John’s arrival seems to bring a little light into his life. A friend of the family, John begins an intimate relationship with Jamie’s mother, and his bond with Jamie becomes more and more fatherly. He’ll be his guide, his mentor. But little by little Jamie is drawn into a murky, dark world where hope is also his fear. Daniel Henshall (John) is brilliant in a role where he superbly balances the duality of his character, charismatic, popular, convincing and at the same time utterly without empathy for life. The dog scene deserves a special mention, the key moment of the film, trying to convey a knowledge impossible for anyone without psychopathy to understand. Lucas Pittaway (who looks like Messi!) gives a masterly performance, drawing the viewer’s empathy. There is some explicit violence against some of the victims. Although fairly repulsive, it doesn’t represent the general tone of the film and is by no means its core. It doesn’t try to give answers or to justify any of the crimes. It’s a background portrait of the events, of the emotions and relationships of the characters, shedding light on the killer’s profile without going into much detail about the murders or their causes. It’s true that more information about the case became public after the film. It’s advisable to get to know the story before watching: there are many assumptions in the script that are hard for non-Australians to know (it was a hugely publicised case) and that can make the film boring and hard to follow.

Watch it if you’re interested in crime, if you know the case or if you’re curious about serial killers. From that perspective it’s phenomenal. If you don’t know the case, it’s strongly recommended to get familiar with the documentary The Bodies in the Barrels, which looks into it. As a film it’s technically brilliant and very interesting, but without prior knowledge of the facts it’s hard going. Difficult to watch, especially if you expect conventional cinema. In the vein of Ed Gein, as dark and raw as the brilliant Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer.

Highly recommended, hard and dark.

King Hyperion has declared war on humanity. He is searching all over Greece for the Epirus Bow, a weapon of great power that would allow him to free the Titans imprisoned by the gods on Mount Tartarus. The laws forbid the gods from intervening directly in human conflicts. But Zeus has been secretly training Theseus, a mortal who will lead the battle against Hyperion…

What have we got?

• A big-budget production.
• Highly polished effects and rarefied cinematography.
• A director, Tarsem Singh, known for the visual effects in his films (The Cell and the magnificent The Fall).
• A very free adaptation of Greek mythology.

What haven’t we got?

• An intelligent script or a consistent story.
• Historical accuracy (traded for a gain in aesthetics).

How does it turn out?

A visual spectacle held up by striking images and colours rather than by a story or script. The starting point is simple and clear: the good guys, the bad guys and those who control everything are all easy to spot. The characters are well played, but the script doesn’t have much to give. In fact there are moments that border on the ridiculous, saved only by the choice of colours. That’s its strong point, the look: it’s dressed as a major production and visually it’s spectacular. It revives the style of 300 (same producer), adding a few novelties in the action scenes, slowing down the pace and shooting in higher definition. It falls a long way short in terms of story, empathy with the characters or pace. Immortals is a visual film re-created from elements of Greek mythology, in which aesthetics trump every other factor. The cinematic results are spectacular, but the cost in interest and script consistency is heavy. As if the film had been conceived around a preconceived aesthetic, and not the other way round. A mediocre result.

Watch it if you’re a fan of the director, if you’re a graphic designer or if you want to be dazzled visually. If you’re a fan of Greek mythology, don’t expect a faithful, accurate story. In the vein of Clash of the Titans or even Prince of Persia. If the visuals matter to you above all, it will interest you.

Watchable, dark and colourful.

What have we got?

• A strange and delicious film, told in an unusual way and centred on the stories of its characters.
• A tour de force from Tilda Swinton, marvellous, carrying the weight of the film.
• A magnificent Kevin, played by two young actors, Jasper Newell and Ezra Miller.
• A soundtrack (by Jonny Greenwood of Radiohead) and photography that fit perfectly.
• A script that interests, digs deep, experiments and makes you think. Based on Lionel Shriver’s best-selling novel of the same name.

What haven’t we got?

• Special effects, action, a frantic pace.
• A big budget.
• A conventional approach.

How does it turn out?

A small gem. One of those films that’s hard to watch again but, if you do, you discover more details. Under the pretext of a case like Columbine, we’re shown the story of a tragic ending for a family, the path that led them to appalling events. The film focuses on a mother’s constant review of her life as she tries to understand how she has ended up where she is, with her son in prison after carrying out a massacre. The pace is slow, interesting and mysterious in a strange way. Red is constant. The present is shown through repeated flashbacks to the past, always from the protagonist’s memories, which hide neither a sense of guilt nor of incomprehension. The image we get of Kevin is distorted by her frustrated, desolate and bewildered conception of him. The viewer’s interest never flags. We Need to Talk About Kevin is a portrait of a broken family, a boy with problems and parents who don’t know how to deal with it. Is it the mother’s fault, for not knowing how to treat her son? Or perhaps the father’s, unable to see the problem? Is there anything to be done with a son like this? Curiously, for all that the title says “we need to talk about Kevin”, his parents never once talk about him in the whole film.

Watch it on a day when you can settle in for it, as it demands concentration. In its subject it recalls Elephant, except that here the protagonist is the mother. The way it develops its characters and the rawness of events, above all the naturalness with which they happen, recall Tyrannosaur.

Highly recommended, but not for everyone.

What have we got?

• A first-time director on the big screen, who also co-writes the script.
• Well-known actors: Rebecca Hall (Vicky, the brunette in Vicky Cristina Barcelona), Dominic West (the lead in the great The Wire and in 300) and Imelda Staunton (the dreadful teacher in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, even better in the recent Another Year).
• A classic ghost story that will feel like one you’ve seen before.
• A film advertised as horror and written as a mystery.
• A few jumps.

What haven’t we got?

• A great story, innovation, surprise.
• Terror.
• A consistent script.

How does it turn out?

A well-made film that is easily forgotten. The actors do a good job: Rebecca Hall is believable in a rather tangled, ever-changing role and carries the weight of the story. Dominic West is convincing, though at times he seems comic, leaving you wondering whether that’s intentional (his stammer is funny). Imelda Staunton is perhaps the most consistent performer. In fact her character keeps getting better, and she makes more of it on screen. Special mention to Isaac Hempstead Wright, the boy, a difficult part very well executed. The setting is impeccable, which helps the photography a great deal and gives the film a very pleasing look. The cinematography is simple and sure-footed, not at all risky or innovative. The trouble with the whole is that it isn’t consistent. More than an original story it feels like a blend of other films: close-ups with blurred backgrounds where apparitions appear, a tormented character who doesn’t understand reality, supporting actors who know more than they let on, ghost children… It’s like a film you’ve already seen but can’t quite remember. Then there are the twists, or attempts at twists: too many and forced. It’s easy to amuse yourself trying to guess ahead. In fact they weigh on the script and leave a few inconsistent holes. It seems the first-time director has built a film where the formula outweighs the content, while still showing aptitude in many areas. Even so, it’s watchable and pleasing to the eye, above all because of the impeccable setting.

A debut in which the director shows promise: a visually attractive film that leaves no lasting taste.

Watch it for a night of gentle horror with your other half, or if you don’t like horror films: there are no unpleasant images, quite the opposite. In the vein of The Orphanage, The Devil’s Backbone or Darkness. For more horror and less aesthetics, Insidious. Better still: The Others.

Passable and insipid.

What have we got?

• A realistic film, full of suspense and action, with a virus as its star.
• A director known for intelligent films and social themes (Traffic, Erin Brockovich).
• A luxury cast: Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, Marion Cotillard, Kate Winslet…
• A debate that is social, political, biological and, above all, personal.
• A big budget.

What haven’t we got?

• Any notable inconsistencies (in the script, at least).
• A slow pace.
• A demagogic or half-baked message.

How does it turn out?

A gripping film at a breathless pace, where lots of things happen at once, with many angles opened up and many stories overlapping. Although it’s centred on the US, it’s a worldwide epidemic and the film keeps that feeling alive throughout. To set the different scenes the director uses wide shots of cities, with their names and populations, to convey the scale and speed of the tragedy: simple and effective. The drama arrives in just the right measure, leaving enough time to connect with the characters without being morbid. There’s room for scientific and political debate, for social criticism and for the media. For empathy. It isn’t a film with a message: it presents facts for the viewer to weigh up. It certainly tries to be realistic, and it succeeds. Alarmist? Doom-mongering? That depends on how you read it, but that doesn’t seem to be the intention. Setting the scientific rigour aside (I can’t judge it), it seeks objectivity and coherence in the consequences. What it shows is the fragility of a species, how the most innocent of coincidences could finish off a whole race. How the very habits that move our world forward are the ones that could destroy us. How survival instinct kicks in in desperate situations, for better or worse depending on the person. How fear spreads faster than viruses… In short, a film to make you think.

It’s a more up-to-date version of Outbreak with the action of the brilliant Twelve Monkeys. The technical level is high, and realistic enough for those of us who know nothing about biology. The script, though very elaborate and fast-paced, is easy to follow.

Watch it if you want a good couple of hours, if you want to reflect, or if you like the films mentioned above. If you’re curious about what would happen if what they warned about swine flu actually came true. What would governments, the scientific community, the public and the media do? How would the world react? There’s a bit of everything, without going too deep. Don’t watch it if you’re anxious or stressed.

Recommended, very interesting.

What have we got?

• Roland Emmerich (Godzilla, Independence Day), director of big productions, special effects and astronomical budgets.
• A story that starts from a controversy but develops around the succession to Elizabeth I’s throne.
• Efficient actors: Rhys Ifans (you may know him from Notting Hill or the magnificent The Boat That Rocked) and Vanessa Redgrave (Howards End).
• Cinematography that’s pleasant to look at.
• Unnecessary special effects.

What haven’t we got?

• Historical accuracy in the details.
• Credibility from the director (sensationalism in The Day After Tomorrow, historical research in the deadly dull 10,000 BC).

How does it turn out?

A product that tries to shine in many ways and ends up mediocre in nearly all of them, with a few notable moments. Let’s be clear that it isn’t a documentary, even though it starts out like one. The events it presents are an independent reinterpretation of history, put together to justify the confusion over who wrote Shakespeare’s works. What’s the problem? Well, it isn’t clear who the right audience is. I can see two kinds: the Oxfordians and everyone else. If you’re an Oxfordian you’ll almost certainly like it. If you aren’t, but you know the history, it will probably irritate you. There are some inaccuracies, and the script has to be given a great deal of credit. It doesn’t illustrate and it doesn’t convince. Take away the layer of historical background (which most of the audience will have) and you’re left with a film of little substance and dwindling interest. It’s hard to follow because it takes so much information for granted.

That said, the performances are solid, especially Rhys Ifans as the Earl. The sets are impeccable (the reconstruction of the original Globe is spectacular), and even the re-creation of what the plays of the time must have looked like on stage. Those moments on screen are sublime. The plot behind the story is intriguing but can’t be fully appreciated: there are too many historical assumptions. We get an exalted Earl and a Shakespeare drawn to the point of ridicule, perhaps an exaggeration. More historical rigour would have made it more credible; it’s hard to tell what’s true and what isn’t. In the end it’s strictly entertainment, and it distorts the spirit of the original question: was Shakespeare a fraud? I don’t know, but the film certainly is.

Watch it if you’re a Shakespeare fan, if the Oxford theory interests you, if you like a bit of sensationalism, or if you didn’t fall asleep during 10,000 BC. With some historical research beforehand it may be interesting, and it has a few brilliant moments. For historical fiction, the masterful Amadeus is far better.

Swallowable.

What have we got?

• Paris according to a very finely tuned Woody Allen.
• A romantic comedy told as a fairy tale.
• A masterly and unexpected performance from Owen Wilson.
• A fantastic trip through the Paris of 1920.
• Surrealism, with a cameo from Carla Bruni thrown in.

What haven’t we got?

• Special effects.
• A boring story.

How does it turn out?

A small, picturesque work of art from the director. Unpretentious: the script, though very finely tuned, isn’t the most remarkable thing about it. The actors, though Owen Wilson stands out (there are moments when he seems to be Woody Allen himself), along with Corey Stoll (impressive as Hemingway) and Adrien Brody (hunting for Dalí’s accent), aren’t the most glamorous. The story, though not perfect, is captivating. But altogether it makes a magical film, pleasant to watch, one that hooks you and is a joy. The cinematography is geared towards highlighting the beauty of the city and the characters, playing very well with colours and tones to tell past from present (it seems Woody Allen experimented with a different digital format for this film). It has something of the fairy tale about it: simple, uncomplicated, with fantasy. A charming conceit, in cahoots with 1920s Paris and full of admiration for it. There are also a few little pearls to reflect on, the director’s trademark: love, happiness, dreams, the past. But above all there is a great deal of homage to Parisian culture at the start of the last century: we’ll see Hemingway, Picasso, Dalí, Toulouse-Lautrec, Degas, Matisse, Gauguin… all of them with something to contribute. Pay close attention to Marion Cotillard’s role, not only her delightful performance but the character herself, who is very interesting. At times she seems to embody the spirit of the city of Paris, looking to the past rather than the future. The film plays on nostalgia, the idea of a better past or of periods in which you would have liked to live. Above all it’s a journey through time in a city that makes you fall in love, an essay on how an artist’s mind works in search of inspiration. Inspiration presented as a fairy tale, a love story with a city, an era, a way of seeing things. And sometimes a look at the past helps you reconnect with yourself in the present.

Watch it as a romantic comedy, with your other half, for a night of fantasy. Woody Allen fans: it partly recaptures the kind of script, like Manhattan, that defined him as a writer. Hunters of romantic comedies, you’ll like it. In the vein of Before Sunrise, but as a fairy tale.

Recommended, sweet surrealism.

What have we got?

• A film directed by Steven Spielberg, shot digitally, rendered in 3D and animated by Peter Jackson’s studio.
• A story based on the adventures of Tintin and a tribute to the work (the artist who draws Tintin’s portrait in the opening scene is modelled on Hergé himself).
• A director and a producer who are fans of the character.
• A long-running project that began in 1983 when Spielberg acquired the rights to Tintin.
• The first film in the trilogy of an ambitious project: re-creating the world Hergé imagined.

What haven’t we got?

• A literal reproduction of The Secret of the Unicorn.
• Unjustified 3D.
• Political references or social criticism.

How does it turn out?

A carefully crafted animated film, made with real care, with 3D that adds depth, realism to the settings and action scenes. The landscapes are spectacular. The script conveys the mystery and arouses the curiosity we found in the comic. The characters respect the essence of the original: Tintin is curious, intelligent, brave, fair and adventurous; Snowy is the dog who is always at his side and helps in any way he can; Thomson and Thompson keep the stupidity and sense of duty that define them; and Captain Haddock… well, he’s Captain Haddock! Even physically the characterisations are very well judged (despite Tintin’s sexless face). The script is based on The Crab with the Golden Claws, The Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham’s Treasure, which may confuse the more critical about the story’s fidelity, since the title points to only one of the three.

For those of you not familiar with Tintin, here you’ll find mystery and adventure, mixed with moments of great action. As early as 1981, Tintin was being compared with Raiders of the Lost Ark (that’s when the director first took an interest), and there are similarities, so if you like that kind of film it may appeal to you. It’s aimed at a young audience (like the comic), although the plot is interesting enough for adults too (especially the nostalgic ones). Despite being animated, I wouldn’t recommend it for the very little ones.

The film is entertaining and, as an introduction to Tintin’s world, a marvel. It seems Hergé was right when he said that ‘Spielberg is the only one who could do Tintin justice’. We’ll see what Peter Jackson, the director of the second one, does with it: the foundations have been laid.

Highly recommended, nostalgia renewed.

What have we got?

• A film aimed at teenagers, designed to entertain, impress and move young and old alike.
• Very realistic special effects, so well done you hardly notice them.
• Big-name producers (Spielberg, Zemeckis), the sort who sometimes bring a bit of magic to the cinema.
• Popular actors who suit their roles very well.
• A simple, predictable, easy film.

What haven’t we got?

• Any pretension in the script: no complications, no social or technological critique.
• Deep characters or an original story.

How does it turn out?

An easy-to-digest, entertaining product, the kind you can watch again and again. The script has the robots (and effects) of Transformers and a little of the sensitivity of E.T., but above all it recalls two Stallone films: Over the Top (the one about the trucker who arm-wrestles with his son in tow; you’ve surely seen it!) and Rocky IV (the one with the Russian, Ivan Drago). The difference is that here the fighters, the robots, are spectacular. In return, the script isn’t very demanding when it comes to characters or story. It’s based on a short story from the 1950s, ‘Steel’, which was later adapted as an episode of the wonderful The Twilight Zone.

The lead is Dakota Goyo (you may know him as the young Thor), an 11-year-old who hogs the screen, lectures his father and is, at the very least, a prodigy (just like in those 80s films where the kids were the cleverest and always right). Hugh Jackman (famous for X-Men and the excellent The Prestige) plays the irresponsible father, an ex-boxer who could have had it all but can’t take responsibility for anything, which makes him a loser. He’s perfect in the part, which looks tailor-made for him. Evangeline Lilly (Lost) is his girlfriend; she brings sensitivity and a smile, though she cries too much. Even with a muddled character, she’s fine.

Basically you’ll see robot fights in different settings, alongside a story about a father and son, about self-improvement and fighting for what you want. It has that Spielberg habit of going for the easy tear, and of being an unpretentious film you can happily watch many times. But what really stands out is the boxing between robots, which is spectacular.

Watch it if you want to know what happens when you combine boxing and robots; it doesn’t disappoint on that front. It’s also entertaining and easy to watch, as long as you’re not too demanding. Film buffs who are allergic to Hollywood products should steer clear.

Recommended, and entertaining.

What have we got?

• An Israeli spy film adapted to American tastes.
• Actors on the rise: Jessica Chastain (wordless in The Tree of Life) and Sam Worthington (Avatar, where 3D makes sense).
• Established actors: Helen Mirren (great fun in RED) and Tom Wilkinson (watch him in RocknRolla).
• Two timelines, 1964 and 1997, in which the film unfolds, and plenty of flashbacks.
• A bit of action, a bit of suspense.
• A script that’s interesting at the start.

What haven’t we got?

• A script that’s interesting at the end.
• Stellar performances (adequate at best).
• A consistent story.

How does it turn out?

An ambitious film that only manages to be entertaining. The first 20 minutes are promising and set up a plot that hooks you. But as the story develops it lacks depth, both in its situations and in its characters. It has some interesting moments (the shared tension between Rachel and Dr Vogel in the clinic) but not much else. From there the story wobbles. We expect strong minds from the characters (they’re Mossad agents, after all!), yet they crumble at the first encounter with the sadistic doctor. And very little is said in the film about his crimes. It’s easy to link him with Dr Mengele, played in The Boys from Brazil, but here it’s hard to share the characters’ loathing of him, because the character is so shallow. That undermines the realism of the story. Another weak point is how disconnected the 1964 characters are from their 1997 counterparts. The actors don’t look alike physically, and they don’t even have mannerisms that identify them. All that carries over is a scar on Rachel’s face (probably symbolising the burden of the debt). Still, the film has doses of action, moments of suspense and competent scenes that make it entertaining. It revolves around a debt the three characters have carried since the mission described in the book. Seeing how it has shaped their lives and how they have come to terms with it can make the film interesting. But the script’s shallowness stops us connecting with the characters and leaves holes in the story.

Watch it if it’s on TV, if you watch every spy film going, or if you’re a fan of the original or of any of the actors. Don’t expect much, but it’s diverting. Much better-crafted spy films are Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Munich.

Entertaining.