Each weekend Jeff Simpson reviews a couple of the latest movie releases - you can read his review in full and submit your thoughts about the film.


MAX PAYNE (15)

It’s a film based on a ‘shoot ‘em up’ video game, with Mark Wahlberg as the hero, Max Payne. It's a bit of a predictable story – he’s a maverick cop out to avenge the death of his wife. And he goes off and gets involved with some people who’re taking a drug that makes them feel invincible. The story itself doesn’t really work or make sense really, but they have brought in elements of the video game – plenty of special effects for slomo shots of what gamers call ‘bullet time’. And when people have trouble with these drugs, they have these demons called Valkyrie who fly in and menace them. So it all looks terrific, with the stylised cityscape of New York, where it’s always snowing. But the bigger issue is that it doesn't really work as a mainstream film. There are some good moments when it kicks off and all the effects kick in, especially towards the end, but it doesn’t really fit together as a detective story, the characters are all a bit weak, and let’s face it, Marky Mark’s not really a great actor. If you just take it on the level of a video game – the action sequences, the way it looks, it’s OK. (Although who knows whether fans of the game will accept the changes that have been made). But we're not sure that Max Payne is going to find many fans beyond the virtual world.

THE BAADER MEINHOF COMPLEX (18)

'Complex' is the right word for this film. It’s about the German terrorist group of the 1970s. And it's in German. The story is in two parts really. First of all, they go through how this group was born, out of the revolutionary atmosphere of 1968, when the world was in turmoil, and the Vietnam war and all that stuff. Ulrika Meinhof was actually a journalist who was writing about this bunch of anarchists, and who gets drawn into their circle, and goes over to the other side. But then they go around bombing department stores, and attacking judges and fighting The System. Obviously, it’s terrible things that they do, but the fact that all these events actually happened is quite shocking and fascinating at the same time. But then in the second half of the film, it becomes a bit different – because the Baader Meinhoff gang are all in prison, but they inspire other groups around the world – so it goes off to Iraq, and links in with the attacks at the Munich Olympics, and it all becomes a bit sprawling, to be honest. And the other problem with the second half, is that we lose our connection with the main characters, Andreas Baader and Ulrika Meinhof. All this adds up to two and a half hours - so it’s a big ask, particularly as it covers so much territory, and it’s in German. But in the end, we thought it was well worth it. More as a historical document, really. Because as such, it is very comprehensive and fascinating. It’s not really about the characters - you learn a lot about what they did, but not really why they did it. And who’s to say why people go out and do terrible things like they did? It doesn’t really attempt to get under the skin of these characters. But it does tell you an amazing amount about what happened and about the times they went through, and for that reason it's a thumbs up for Baader Meinhoff Complex.

W. (15)

The title is pronounced 'dub-ya', and, of course, it’s an Oliver Stone film about George W Bush. He’s made films about JFK and Nixon, and now he’s caught up with the most recent President. And really it covers two areas – the first is Bush's early life, when he was a drunk and didn’t know what to do with his life, and he’s under the shadow of his father, and then he finds God, which is an interesting moment. And the other area is the Presidency itslelf, and the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. And the film is really trying to imply that George Bush Jr never really got over being the son of George Bush Snr. And the psychology of it this is very interesting stuff. But there’s also an aweful lot of detail about the meetings where the discussed Iraq – who said what among Bush’s adviers, etc. And all that’s very interesting as well – but in a different way. So it’s really two films mixed up, we don't really know how to take the film – is it a comedy, is it a tragedy, or is it a farce? Because it’s got elements of all three. And certainly, there’s plenty of fun on the comedy side – all these actors being Colin Powell and Dick Cheney. The best one is Thandie Newton doing Condoleza Rice and that strange voice that she has. And the guy who does Bush, Josh Brolin, is brilliant as well – although he does play him as a bit of an oaf, and there's a lot more to George Bush than what we see portrayed in the film. So in some ways it can be taken as quite comic, but of course, these are deadly serious matters they’re dealing with. It's also a bit clumsy as well – where they go ‘oh, Axis of Evil, that’s a good phrase, we’ll use that’. Or ‘Shock and Awe – let’s call it that.’ So it’s a good film – in so far as it takes us through recent history, and helps us draw a line under Bush’s presidency – and it’s great that it came out in the week of the regime change in America. But it doesn’t quite nail these two different elements –whether it’s a satire on George Bush, or whether it’s a look into his relationship with his father. So it won't go down as one of Oliver Stone’s greatest films by any means – but, this particular week, it’s well worth going out to see.

EASY VIRTUE (PG)

This is the kind of film Liz loves - an elegant country house comedy, set in very genteel 1920s England with a posh family who’re a bit strapped for cash. And the son arrives with a brash American fiancée – so it’s really about a bunch of snooty English people reacting to a rather loud, pushy American, which is pretty much guaranteed to please. But it's lifted into a class of its own by the cast - Colin Firth as the father, Kristin Scott Tomas as the mother, Ben Barnes from Prince Caspian as the son, and the very funny Jessica Beil as the fiancée. It’s based on a Noel Coward play – and it’s very much set in that Noel Coward world of country houses and witty one liners. But they’ve updated it a bit, with Noel Coward versions of modern songs like Car Wash and Sex Bomb. And it all amounts to a delightful little confection, pure class.

QUANTUM OF SOLACE (12a)

Yes, Bond is Back! And the story actually picks up from the end of the last film, Casino Royale. Bond is out to avenge the death of Vesper – the woman he fell in love with in Casino Royal. But although it’s a kind of continuation, the tone of this film is really quite different from the first one. The story is that he has to go off and look into a bad guy who’s posing as a green activist, but is really the front for a global secret organisation – who’re trying to overthrow South American governments. And this, of course, is an excuse for him to go off to Bolivia, and Haiti, and there’s also scenes in Italy and Austria. But the most striking thing is that some of the classic ingredients of the Bond film are coming back. They made Casino Royale very dark, and Bond himself very brutal, because they wanted to ring the changes. We had a discussion on Liz's show at the time about the Austin Powers effect, because Austin Powers had turned a lot of the elements of Old Bond into clichés. So with the new Daniel Craig Bond, they were trying to make it feel very different, and it really worked. But with Quantum of Solace, they’ve realised that they’re actually up against a lot of other films with shoot outs and car chases – films like the Bourne films – so they seem to have back to a lot of the original elements of Bond. So he’s up against a big secret organisation, there’s the big finale in a specially built giant set which is the villain’s lair. There's the moment when he beds a girl 10 minutes after meeting her, and there's even a reference to the girl painted gold from Goldfinger. Bond himself is a bit smoother in this one, not as violent. And it’s all good – but you could say that Casino Royale felt more edgy. This is a bit more like a safe option, giving people what they expect from a Bond film. Daniel Craig is still fantastic, but there's not as much of an opportunity to show him off as an actor. So it’s good, but it feels like a bit of a safe option. And fans of the new Bond might like to see something a bit more challenging, just as Batman, with the Dark Knight, became a really edgy, raw version of this iconic character. Liz likes all the old cliches and innuendo of the Roger Moore era, and Quantum of Solace isn't in that territory yet, but if they continue to play safe, there's a risk of turning the whole thing into a cliché once more.

HUNGER (15)

This is not an easy film to review, because of the subject matter. Anyone who was around in the early 80s will remember the name Bobby Sands, the IRA man who was in the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland, and as part of a protest he went on hunger strike and starved himself to death. And this is a film about what it was like inside the Maze for him and other prisoners. And as a film, it’s as uncompromising as the subject matter. The subject is pretty tough going anyway, but also the way it’s shot, the way it’s put together doesn’t make it any easier to watch either. It’s long, sometimes there’s 30 minutes go by without any dialogue, there’s one 15 minute scene of two people talking, just with a locked off shot. And of course the subject is not for the squeamish – the conditions within the prison are pretty inhuman. And for the audience, there's a bit of a disconnect, because the film tells you what happened, but not really why it happened. Of course, it would be impossible to describe all the circumstances and the history leading up to that moment in one film, but the fact that they don’t even try to go there leaves you detached from the people you’re watching. So you’re watching this very difficult journey, without any emotional involvement with the people. Many are proclaiming this film as great art, which it may well be. But it's a big ask for the audience. Yes, it's powerful, yes it's put together in a very striking way, but it's also really hard going for the audience, and for a lot of viewers, the challenge of watching the film will be less than the reward.

GHOST TOWN (12a)

It's Ricky Gervais in a Hollywood movie. And it’s a bit of a surprise, actually, because it is a proper Hollywood movie. The good news for Ricky Gervais fans is that there’s quite a lot of the Ricky we know and love. He plays a dentist who hates people, and actually the best scenes are in the first half hour, where he’s being horrible to people, and puncturing that ‘have a nice day’ American attitude - which is actually quite bold for a Hollywood movie. But then, there’s a bit of a change of direction, and it goes into a kind of love story, and the idea that he sees dead people, and he has to help these ghosts sort out the problems they’ve left behind in the real world. And it actually becomes quite sentimental. We know from 'Extrass that Ricky sometimes plays on the sentimental note, but there's a world of difference between doing that on TV, and pulling it off in the context of a Hollywood film, where they’re trying to do a big, powerful emotional moment …. and the orchestra is swelling … and it’s Ricky Gervais we're looking at. People like Bill Murray or even Jim Carrey can do the emotional stuff as well as the funny stuff, but Ricky's not in that league yet. To give him credit, the funny moments are really funny – there’s one scene where he’s trying to impress a date, and she’s got a Great Dane dog – which is breathing all over him and making him wretch while he’s trying to impress this woman. So the ‘clowning’ is great. But the bigger problem is - Ricky Gervais just doesn’t look like a Hollywood leading man. He actually looks quite pasty up against the supporing male actor, Greg Kinnear, who’s tanned and sparkling blue eyes. And Ricky’s just not that type of star. So he just doesn’t light up the screen, even in a way that Jack Black can do, for example. So for us in the UK, as fans of Ricky Gervais, there’s enough funny moments to make it work for us – although you have to be aware that it does go into that Hollywood sentimental route. But it's anyone's guess what the Americans will make of it – because it’s aiming to be a proper mainstream product, and Ricky is a talented British character actor, not a leading man. So good effort, but not sure whether it’s the right film for him.

MIRRORS (15)

'Mirrors' is a horror film, starring Keifer Sutherland – and the idea is ‘that the people in the mirrors are trying to kill you’. Keifer gets a job as a night watchman in a spooky deserted building in New York, and the building is full of mirrors, because it used to be a shop. And when he looks in the mirrors, he sees spooky things – because there’s all kind of terrible forces trapped behind the mirrors. Actually, there’s other things happen as well, but that’s the basic premise. . Obviously, it’s quite a silly idea. In fact, there’s times when you sit there and think, ‘this is the most stupid idea for a horror film I’ve ever seen’. But then thankfully you get another nice jump-out-of-your-seat moment, and you forget how stupid it all is. But the reason it just about works is that they’ve really gone to town on everything. Big Hollywood star. There’s a massive set, which looks fantastic, and it means he can do a lot of wandering off down darkened corridors armed only with a torch and a desire to look into dark empty rooms. There’s a lot of special effects, a big spectacular ending. So all of this just about keeps it afloat. And there’s quite a neat kind of post-script at the end – so they chuck everything in but the kitchen sink, basically. To be honest, there have been more scarey, lower budget horror films this year, including 'The Strangers' and 'The Mist'. But as for 'Mirrors', the quote for the poster is, ‘it’s not as bad as it sounds when we describe the idea to you’.

CITY OF EMBER (PG)

As it's half term for a lot of the country, here's a ‘family film’, a fantasy adventure, with there’s plenty for the grown-ups as well. Ember is a ‘post-apocalypse’ city built underground – where the people rely on an old generator for light and heat. But the generator’s getting clapped out, and two teenagers have to sort it out and save the city. So it's a clear metaphor. But also for the grown-ups, there’s an array of fantastic character actors – led by Bill Murray as the city’s corrupt mayor. And he’s having a whale of a time with that role, because it reminds you just a little bit of certain American politicians. And there’s also Tim Robbins, Martin Landau – Liz Smith from the Royal Family, and Mackenzie Crook. So there’s a bit of political satire. The whole theme about energy running out is quite topical as well. And it all looks great – it’s a bit like Brazil, the Terry Gilliam film. It’s actually quite dark for the kids, and there’s some scarey creatures running around as well, which is why it's a PG. But it’s one of those films that you can take on two levels. So if you have any young teens kicking about the house over half term, so it’s probably a good one for a family outing.

HOW TO LOSE FRIENDS AND ALIENATE PEOPLE (15)

It’s a comedy with Simon Pegg – but it’s very different from the Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz type of stuff we’re used to seeing him in. He plays a British journalist working on the edges of the celebrity world – and he gets given a job on an upmarket New York glossy magazine. So he goes over there, and it’s about how he doesn’t fit in, and gets up everybody’s nose – while roaming around the upper echelons of the world of celebrity. So it’s a bit more of a sophisticated comedy than we’re used to seeing him in – but it does really work. Because the joke basically is that he sets out to puncture that celebrity world of what he calls the ‘glossy posse’ – and he tries to use those two very British weapons of cynicism and irony. And of course, as we know, Americans just don’t get irony, and there’s a great absence over there of our healthy British cynicism. But of course as the story goes on, he finds himself in the middle of all this glamour, and gets seduced by this world – so it becomes a kind of pact with the devil. Because he realises that in order to get on, he has to play the PR game, so it’s also a bit of a satire on the way all these celebrity magazines So it’s subtle, it’s clever, there’s enough laugh-out-loud set pieces to keep you tittering. It’s actually based on a British journalist called Toby Young, who went to Vanity Fair. And there was a stage play based on the book. But for the film, they’ve added a romance – with Kirsten Dunst. And she’s always added value in a film. And Jeff Bridges is the magazine editor. But it’s great to see Simon Pegg taking on Hollywood and winning, because he’s really great in it. Goodness knows what the American audience will make of it, but for us Brits, it’s spot on.

BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (12A)

For people of a certain age, Brideshead Revisited was THE TV costume drama of the 1980s. And here it is being re-done as a lavish big screen version. Once again, there's a couple of pretty boy Brit actors, Matthew Goode and Ben Whishaw, as the two leads, plus Emma Thompson as the mother, and Michael Gambon as the estranged father. And for people who don’t know the story, it’s set in the 1930s, in that idyllic period between the wars. Charles Ryder is a middle class guy who goes to study in Oxford, and he makes friends with the rather effete, upper class Sebastian Flyte – and gradually gets drawn into the world of Flyte's posh but very dysfunctional family. The story is more or less exactly as people will remember it from the TV series. In fact, they even use the same location for Brideshead castle, which is Castle Howard in Yorkshire. The only differences, really, are that they turn the gay button up a couple of notches when the two guys go into this rather intense friendship. And the Catholic religion is bumped up as quite a strong theme as well. So it does beg the question, why bother doing a film of it, if it’s already been done? Well, for many, there's a certain pleasure in re-living the TV series - in the sense of ,'oh, yes, this is the bit where they go off to Venice', or 'this is the bit where the father comes bac'k. And there's the added bonus of Emma Tompson as the bitchy, controlling Catholic mother, she's a real treat. It's quite possible that people who don't remember the TV series will be left cold by the whole thing, and at two hours 20 minutes, it's a bit of a challenge to the bum. It moves along like an elegant ocean liner – slowly and sedately. So it may not be for everyone. But for people who like to buy a big thick novel and sit down and read the whole thing, or people who loved the TV series, it's a treat.

RIGHTEOUS KILL (15)

It's Robert De Niro and Al Pacino – together. They did appear together in ‘Heat’ – but they only had one scene together, in a coffee bar. So this is the first film where they’ve really done the whole film together. But the weird thing about this one was that the film company refused to do any previews for reviewers – but we snuck in to a screening anyway. There had been rumours that the reason they didn't want to preview it was because it was so bad. Or maybe just that they thought the two names together would be enough for people to go and see it. But now, having seen it, it may actually be to do with a ‘twist’ – which we won't reveal, so no 'spolier warning'. The story is they play two New York cops who’ve been partners for years – and there’s a kind of good cop, bad cop situation. But there’s a serial killer out there who keeps bumping off the bad guys. And the evidence suggests that it’s someone in the police department who’s doing the murders. But people will be interested first and foremost in is how it works between De Niro and Pacino – and the truth is, it’s all a bit flat, for nearly all of the film. There’s no really big moments for these two to get their teeth in to, there’s nothing really to set the screen alight. What you really want to see is these two great actors firing off on all cylinders – but that doesn’t really happen til the last 10 minutes. What’s good about it is that there's a twist, which we didn't spot til it was revealed. So the film deserves some credit for that. And that point where the twist is revealed is also the point where it kind of kicks off in terms of their performances. So what you get, actually, is 90 minutes of fairly standard stuff, and about 10 minutes at the end where it kicks off. So if you’re looking for vintage De Niro / Pacino action, it’s just about there, but you really have to wait a long time for it. And if it wasn’t for them, it would actually be a fairly standard thriller.

SWING VOTE (12A)

This is a really enjoyable film, but very difficult to describe. Kevin Kostner plays a real layabout, white trash, single parent. And in a fictional American election, the result is an absolute dead heat – and for various reasons, Kevin Kostner is able to re-cast his vote, so in effect, he has to chose who is the next president of the United States. And the two candidates, by the way, are Kelsey Grammar and Dennis Hopper – so a really great choice. So obviously, with the American election going on for real, there’s lots of opportunity for a big satire on the American political system, and there’s plenty of that going on - about how these politicians completely cynically manipulate this poor man. But what the film does, rather brilliantly, is it actually concentrates on the relationship between him and his daughter – and she’s a kind of Lisa Simpson character, who’s aware of all the issues, and she takes her father through that process of making him care about politics, and making him realise the importance of his vote. So it's best described as a parable about US politics. And if you follow US politics - or even if you don’t - it's a really powerful message about ordinary people taking control of politics. But if it was just that, it could sound quite preachy, which it’s not, because you’ve got a big heart to the story, it’s done with a lot of human interest, a lot of charm, and a bit of satire to give it a kick as well.

TROPIC THUNDER (15)

A dream cast for Liz - Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr, plus our own Steve Coogan in support. The three leads play actors who’re cast in a Vietnam War film. So there’s lots of opportunities to take the micky out of Hollywood and that world. In fact, it actually starts with three spoof movie trailers, which are brilliant. Ben Stiller is an over the hill action hero who’s trying to be taken seriously. Jack Black is a comedy star who’s had a series of hit films where he dresses up in a fat suit and farts a lot. And the really funny one is Robert Downey, who’s a method actor who really gets immersed in his roles, so in this one, he’s got the role of a black soldier, and he’s so into his part, he has his skin dyed and never comes out of character And the twist in the story is that they end up really having to survive in the Vietnam Jungle, while they think they’re actually being filmed. And it becomes this action movie which is like a cross between Rambo and Apocalypse Now. To be honest, the funniest stuff is in the first half hour, where they're taking the mick out of Hollywood and their own personas as movie stars. But as the story kicks in, it moves more into action, and less into comedy. There's lots of stunts and explosions, and it ends up actually relying on all the Hollywood clichés that it’s supposed to be sending up. Nevertheless, it's well worth seeing, especially for the movie spoofs and also for Robert Downey Jr, who really steals the show. Liz might be disappointed that Jack Black is actually a bit underused. But the film definitly has its moments, it’s certainly a very funny premise – but it’s a slight shame it had to fall back in the end on action and stunts.

LIVE ! (15)

This is another satire, this time on reality TV gameshows. The idea is that a TV producer comes up with the idea of doing Russian Roulette live on TV, where one contestant shoots themselves and the others get a cash prize. So it's obviously all a bit sick, and the producers clearly think they’re making quite a bold, controversial film – but actually, a lot of American TV is actually like that, especially with more and more shows relying on pure luck. So yes, Russian Roulette is the ultimate game of luck – so they have kind of got a point. But the bigger problem is, as a satire, it’s just not delivered with any humour. The word 'irony' doesn't seem to exist in the American dictionary, and it would have been nice to see a bit of tongue-in-the-cheek in the delivery. Instead, it's about as subtle as sledge-hammer. Also, the ending is a big fat cop out. So although it's got a point, Live! Is not entirely successful as a a satire.

PINEAPPLE EXPRESS (15)

Another comedy from the Judd Apatow stable, which we've been quite a fan of on this show. But this one's not up to usual standards, sadly. It’s about the misadventures of two dudes – the lead is Seth Rogan, the guy from 'Knocked Up'. He plays a bit of a loser, again. And his mate is the guy who sells him his pot. They mistakenly get drawn into the world of the drug-dealers, and end up being chased by the drug dealers, and all the time, they’re a bit high. But it seems like the writers must have been a bit high when they wrote it, because it’s all a bit slow and lazy, and worst of all, it thinks it’s funnier than it is. The joke is supposed to be that they’re being chased around while in a state of paranoia – but the laughs just weren’t there in terms of jokes per minute. The Judd Apatow stable is obviously very successful at the moment, so they can command bigger budges. But here they’ve spent on action and stunts – and all that starts to take over at the end of the film, so you’re even further removed from the funny stuff. Also, all the action brings in quite a lot of violence which feels out of place for a comedy. This style of comedy is usually better smaller, and here they’ve tried to go bigger – and theyv’e lost its heart. There’s no doubt that it celebrates the use of cannabis, which is currently a Class C illegal drug in the UK. But maybe that’s why the film’s been a huge hit in America. It might appeal to people who think it’s funny to watch people who’re stoned. But for there rest of us, there are too few laughs to go around.

EDEN LAKE (18)

It's become a familary formula - a good looking couple go away somewhere, they go off the beaten track, and end up being terrorised and having horrible things done to them. We've seen it in quite a few Hollywood movies recently – but the difference here is that Eden Lake takes a British slant. In the American versions, the dark forces terrorising the poor people usually involve a slasher or a mad scientist or even better, some kind of supernatural creature – but of course in the British version, it’s a bunch of hoodies on BMX bikes. And it turns it into a bit of a joke, really – the evil forces in this film are nothing that a couple of ASBOs couldn’t sort out. But actually, it’s worse than that, because when you’re watching all this unpleasantness, you’re not really sure whether it’s supposed to be a thriller, or some kind of social comment about the youth of today. That probably wouldn’t matter if it was well done, but it’s not. There’s no sense of visual style, there’s long sections where nothing happens – and really, the only thing that makes an impact is a bunch of scenes which can only be called ‘torture porn’. At least the American version of this kind of rubbish usually has some sense of style to it, but Eden Lake is just cheap and nasty.

THE DUCHESS (12a)

The news stories and publicity about this film have focussed on the lead character Georgiana's links with the late Princess Diana - but the comparisons aren't necessary, because this film is great in its own rights. It's a real sumptuous treat. But the most striking thing is the story of the Duchess's life. She was a Spencer – so she’s an ancestor of Princess Diana – and she married a powerful but cold man, who then took a mistress. And of course, although they can’t refer to the similarities with Diana in the actual film, there are quite a few ‘nudge nudge’ moments where they make it quite clear what we’re supposed to be taking from it. When she’s about to get married, her mother says ‘the women in our family have no problem producing heirs’. And later, one character exclaims “The Duke is the only man in England not in love with his wife” Georgiana is a bright spark in a stuffy court, who starts off innocent, then becomes a bit of a clothes horse and a bit silly – but then when her husband takes a mistress, she decides to fight for her marriage. So the similarities with Diana are there for those who want to take them. But also there are many aspects which don’t parallel Diana, including the fact that the woman who became the Duke’s mistress was actually brought into the household by Georgiana, and at one stage there seems to have been a rather intimate friendship between the two women – which makes a rather interesting scene in the film. So you can’t take the comparisons too far – and although the publicity have gone too far, in the film itself, it’s not overplayed at all. But as a film, it’s gorgeous to look at, the locations are wonderful, Kiera Knightley’s beautiful – The Duchess is pure class.