Moon

2009, cert: 15, running time: 97 mins

Director: Duncan Jones

Actors: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey, Dominique McElligott

The trailer for Moon is absolutely fantastic. I remember seeing it and immediately thinking "I've got to see that film" and I was waiting several months from seeing the trailer to actually getting to watch the film itself. So when I got to the cinema my expectations were high, raised further by some favorable reviews. For once, I was actually not disappointed.

Moon is the first feature film by Duncan Jones, notably the son of David Bowie, and is an absolutely brilliant debut. Sam Rockwell plays Sam Bell, a miner on a lunar base with a crew of one, on a three year mission to mine Helium 3 - the fuel for environment-saving nuclear fusion energy. His only companionship is the ever-so-subtly creepy helper robot Gertie, expertly voiced by Kevin Spacey. So as you may have picked up, we are firmly in science fiction territory here. However, those expecting explosions, aliens and CGI please bugger off and watch something pointless like the latest three Star Wars films. This is science fiction as it should be: a film about an idea best framed in the setting of space.

The basic premise of the film is that during a routine operation there is an accident out on the lunar surface. Sam crashes his lunar vehicle and awakes some time later back on the lunar base, unharmed but with little recollection of the crash and Gertie seeming to be keeping something from him: "I'm here to keep you safe, Sam." I actually don't want to give away any more of the plot than that, as although the trailer does go a little further, it actually takes quite a long time in the film before the key aspect to the plot is revealed.

Suffice to say that being alone on the moon, the central premise to the story is about solitude and that it is only when you realise that you are truly alone that you discover yourself. One thing that I haven't heard mentioned as inspiration for the film, but seems quite a coincidence if not, was that on the way to the moon on the Apollo 11 mission, Buzz Aldrin had a reoccurring dream about almost the exact same situation. Aside from the central theme there are interesting points raised about the morality of certain scientific technologies (ones that I won't mention by name for fear of spoiling) and the nature of individuality.

One or two extremely minor gripes with the film is that although it is fairly scientifically accurate most of the way through the lunar vehicles making noise (no noise in space) and apparent extra gravity on the lunar base but not outside (but that's being really picky) were slight distractions. It must also be said that they did do a fantastic job of making the outside shots look like the moon too. Others have also said that it was a bit slow, but I found the pace was very fitting for the situation and the film itself feels about the right length.

In all, this is a superbly acted, charming, engaging film and a brilliant directorial debut. I would absolutely recommend this to anybody who likes there films to be about something rather than just explosions and giant robots (Michael Bay, it is not). Even if you do prefer your films to have a promotional line of toys, then give this a try, you might just be surprised. It is fantastic to see a small-budget UK science fiction film making a reasonable impact in cinemas, even on a limited release. This film is original, clever and charming and will make you want to talk to people about it after you've watched it.

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

2009, cert: PG, running time: 153 mins

Director: David Yates

Actors: Daniel Radcliffe, Michael Gambon, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Jim Broadbent, Tom Felton

"You're a wizard 'Arry!"

And we have been transfixed (stupefied one could say...) ever since. Actually, I do have a lot of time for Harry Potter but that is primarily because of J.K. Rowling's books rather than the films. As well as having enjoyed reading all of the books myself they have got thousands, if not millions, of people reading books for fun. they may not be the best written books in the world, they're not really "literature" in the snobby sense, but anything that gets people into books and storytelling is a bloody good thing.

So in a sense, the films are separate entity entirely for me. I have never been particularly captured by the films, certainly not in the same way as the books; and I often feel that the way the films are constricted by re-telling each book is one of their major problems. There is too much plot in most of the books to be satisfactorily conveyed by a two hour film whilst keeping the films entertaining, engaging and coherent. It is a very good job that the final one is coming out in two parts - it's not just the money spinning that it first appears to be. I suppose I'm trying to explain why I want to look at the films as entities in their own rights; not just re-tellings of books but films to be watched and considered as independently from the books as possible.

So, on to the subject at hand: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince or "HP6" if you're lazy and unimaginative. Having just said about how I wanted to think about the films as stand alone films in their own right, it is actually impossible to know how this film would seem to someone who had no idea about the characters. I imagine it would be pretty much impossible to follow without having at least seen the previous films to understand things like Death Eaters, The Dark Mark, Voldemort, quidditch and even what "Half-Blood" is about. This is by no means a problem, as re-explaining all of that stuff every film as well as coping with too much plot would be impossible.

We join Harry at the start of what would be sixth form in the UK, and as its set in the UK I'm going to say he's in sixth form. Or year 12 I suppose. Anyway, as you can imagine hormones are flying everywhere, snogging is top of everyone's priority list (nothing more of course...) and our young heroes are finding out that love is never easy. In fact, the teenagey stuff is done very well (especially as they're hardly teenagers anymore) and really captures the transition from child to adult better than all the US teen drama dross with thirtysomething year old actors playing out stupidly convoluted plot lines. The O.C. would be much better if it was like Harry Potter. These bits are genuinely warm and funny and are a necessary contrast to the ever-growing tide of darkness slowly enveloping Harry et al. This is also something that the film does well, there is a great sense of Something Very Bad Is About To Happen, in a very horror film type way. In fact I was surprised to see imdb listing the genre as Adventure, Fantasy, Mystery and Romance... For me it's a childrens' fantasy horror.

In fact it is the lack of Mystery that I consider one of the film's biggest flaws, it is after all called Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince but by the time we get to the big "I'm the Half-Blood Prince!" reveal, I was struggling to remember why it was even relevant in the first place. It should have been called Harry Potter and the Something Very Bad Is About To Happen. If you don't know what the bad thing is, then you have been living under a rock, but I won't spoil it... Let's just say that Kaiser Soze is Darth Vader's father who sees dead people. It's that big.

The fact that the "Prince" is a "Half-Blood" is totally glossed over, there is only one point where Hermionie is asked what her parents do and she has to explain what a dentist does that the issue of bloodlines is touched upon. This issue is something that is a key part of the whole story of Harry Potter and has echoes of historical events, particularly the holocaust. The obvious good versus evil theme is reinforced in the book by these parallels to the actions of people throughout history. Evil is not necessarily a space monster or nasty dictator, evil is something that comes from people just as good is. The meaning of good and evil is brilliantly portrayed by a stand-out performance by Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy, and it is a shame that there wasn't more.

The other problem is with the Something Very Bad which does ultimately Happen, but in a different way from the book... Now I'm not moaning about them changing the book, but what happens to Harry in the book makes sense as he is unable to prevent the Very Bad Something, however, in the film he could have helped but doesn't... Maybe more will be explained in the next one.

Still, gripes aside, I enjoyed The Half-Blood Prince as a film. I find it really hard to pin-point a best Harry Potter film as they all seem to blur into one, but I suppose that it would be The Prisoner of Azkaban and this one does match up to that fairly well. It is a difficult bit of the story to tell, and David Yates has done a good job keeping the many threads together whilst still making the film watchable. All in all, a good film, bit of a shame at the lack of a Half-Blood Prince, but worth watching even if you're not massively into the Harry Potter film phenomenon. Certainly better than the dross that Hollywood summer blockbuster sequels generally tend to be.

Hercules in New York

1969, cert: PG, running time: 87 mins

Director: Arthur Allan Seidelman

Actors: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Arnold Stang, Deborah Lewis, James Karen

I'm not entirely sure that this film is intended as a comedy per se, it's intended as more of an action adventure type thing I imagine but for the sake of this let us imagine that it is a comedy. A very well respected film critic who many in the UK will be familiar with, Mark Kermode, often says that the test of an acceptable comedy is that it makes you laugh 5 times or more. With that in mind I can safely say that you will laugh enough to make this an acceptable comedy.

So, on to the plot... Or what the film makers cobbled together in order to have Arnie showing off his muscles as much as possible. That's right, if he's not half naked from being picked up by a ship in the middle of the Atlantic, then he's taking off his shirt to throw javelins or to take part in a test of strength competition. Hurrah! Hercules (Arnie) is thrown out of "Mount Olympus" (or some steps in a park somewhere - seriously, you can hear the background noise of traffic and children playing) by Zeus; and Juno (Zeus' wife) wants to get rid of him for good - Hercules is Zeus' son by another woman. So far so predictable, but the real twist is that Hercules is not thrown out of "Mount Olympus" to ancient Greece... He is throw out in the modern world. So Hercules ends up in New York! What a curveball.

Now, you don't need to be a classics scholar to have already noticed something rather fundamentally wrong already. We are supposedly talking about ancient Greek gods and yet most of the gods are in fact Roman: Juno, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Pluto and even Hercules himself should in fact read Hera, Hermes, Aphrodite, Ares, Hades and Heracles. In fact only Zeus and Nemesis are properly named. Naughty film-makers not doing their homework. I imagine the Roman names are more recognisable, and Heracles in New York doesn't have quite the same ring to it. This is, of course, the absolute least of the glaring errors in the film but I thought I'd mention it for completeness and because I'm a bit sad about such things.

Wether it's switching rapidly between day and night mid-scene, absolutely incomprehensible cuts to exactly the same scene but at a slightly different angle, wobbly camera work (before it was fashionable) or just incomprehensible Arnie, this film is in fact so bad its good. Most people don't believe me when I say that but it actually is. It does baffle me how anyone could have thought that this was in any way acceptable, and it was made a year after Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey so its age is not the reason. Of course, the budget was clearly not that of 2001, look for the zoo scene and Arniecles' fight with a "bear"for proof of that. The supporting cast clearly made a joint decision to act a lot more to make up for the lack of acting (or English language) coming from Herr Schwarzenegger. Just spectacular.

Arnie is clearly someone who has been satirised and caricatured over the years, but it appears than nobody can do as good a job as the big guy himself. This film is terrible, and I absolutely love it.

The Dutchess

2008, cert: 12, running time: 105 mins

Director: Saul Dibb

Actors Keira Knightly, Ralph Finnes, Dominic Cooper, Charlotte Rampling

In fact, the biggest reason that I wanted to watch this was because a couple of friends of mine were extras in this film. Much of it was shot in Bath, just down the road from my house and the city where I went to school, so I could also play "spot the filming location" in a very Skins-esque way. I managed to pick out one of my friends in the ballroom scene. If you're not from Bristol or the UK all of this will mean little to you. Apologies.

So, you may have guessed that it was not actually my idea to watch this, and costume dramas are definitely not my thing in general. Still, open-mindedly I had heard lots of good things about the film, even that Kiera does some quite good acting.

There are some interesting themes in the film, freedom most obviously, but misogyny and celebrity along with the normal predictable lovey-dovey-ness that I was fearing. That's not to say a film about love is necessarily uninteresting, but the same could be said of an Arnie film about blowing shit up. Its just that neither is reinventing the wheel. The whole premise of the film is laid out neatly for us in the first 5 minutes or so; with Georgiana (Kiera) having a jolly time with the dashing young Charles (Dominic Cooper) only to then discover she is to marry the very wealthy Duke of Devonshire (Lord Voldemort) on the basis of her being able to provide an heir for him. Hence she becomes "The Dutchess." Neat.

Anyway, I'm not in the business of spoiling plots but it did slightly grate on me that although Georgiana was in some way supposed to be empathised with, the character was just incredibly annoying, selfish and at times very stupid... Now, I am absolutely in no way saying that I have anything but contempt for the way in which she was treated, but exactly what did she expect? It was still legal for a husband to beat his wife - or give her "moderate correction" (although the whole thing about that being the rule of thumb is apparently rubbish). It is actually as if someone from the present has been transported back to Georgian times and although they know how to do all the bowing and so on, she still expects to be treated in some way equally. That would clearly in no way happen. That is why women chained themselves to railings, that is why Emily Wilding Davison threw herself under the King's horse at Epsom. But that is 150 years in the future. The subjugation of women is clearly a very important subject for a film to be made about, but I felt it was only used as a device to make Lord Voldemort of Devonshire into the bad guy. Using a high society costume drama love story to say something interesting about women's rights would have been a damn fine idea, but sadly Georgiana was not concerned in much apart from herself.

Still, missed opportunities to say something important aside, The Dutchess was interesting enough (although possibly only because of the "spot the location" game). Kiera was better than she usually is, although a young Emma Thompson would have been stunning. Lord V was very good at being very unlikable to our modern eyes, and was consistently believable unlike Kiera. I suppose the Catch-22 is that without Kiera plastered all over the cover then the film would never have done the business that it did. Still, The Dutchess is distracting enough, but definitely a missed opportunity.