A Fistful Of Dollars

The Spaghetti Western trilogy begins with a ruthless and intricate film in "Dollars". Clint Eastwood shows even in his first film performance that he was destined to own the Western genre, and Leone's hallmarks (starkly beautiful vistas, memorable Morricone score) are all present. A fantastic debut for any director and star, but in this case historic, and a film that lives up to and exceeds expectations.

The Man With No Name (Eastwood) arrives in a small border town in the southern USA with no agenda, and finds two warring families who wrestle for control over the townspeople. Seeing an opportunity to rake it in, the Man seeks to manipulate the two groups against one another for greater gain, but finds his conscience along the way.

Clint Eastwood's first starring role (after the television series Rawhide) was in "Dollars", but watching his performance, you would not have thought this. Eastwood inhabits the "Man With No Name" with intensity and an air of mystery, only hinting at his past and keeping his dialogue down to a minimum, enfusing his performance with strength with only his expressions. His performance alone is worth watching, if only to see how he went on to become such a famous actor and director from this auspicious start.

The male supporting cast are fantastic here, many just providing evil glares and the odd line, but a few stand out and present themselves as interesting characters. The Rojos brothers, one of the two groups of antagonists, are led by Ramon (Gian Maria Volonte), a ruthless and intelligent man who makes sure to aim for his opponent's heart. This is the most interesting supporting performance; Ramon is a perfect foil for Eastwood's sharp-shooting American, and Volonte does well even through the pitiful dubbing to present a character who exudes menace and could seemingly do whatever he wants to do to whoever he wants to do it. The barkeep and coffin maker are the conscience and comic-relief respectively, but both actors hold their own to Eastwood (again, particularly well despite their performances being butchered by the dubbing).

There are only two female characters within the narrative; Baxter's wife and Marisol, the woman at the centre of the Man’s plans later in the film. They represent two very different variations on female characters, and as such provide a surprise. Baxter's wife is in control, a woman who is really the mastermind behind her husband's motivations, and Marisol is the damsel in distress, but her story does not take the normal path, and provides the film's most interesting scene in the latter half. Whilst the only two women present, the two actresses inhibit different roles from the norm in the '60s, and as a consequence present Leone as a storyteller who is not afraid to buck convention.

The story, told in book and Japanese film form, is a strong one, and Sergio Leone skilfully directs the twists and turns. Leone shows here that the Old West could be perfectly recreated in Europe, and his aim to make the setting as realistic as possible gives the film most of its strength.. Sergio Leone always said his influence for these films was John Ford, and in fitting the story to the screen, he emulates his famous predecessor. The manipulation and scheming of the protagonist merges so well with the music and visuals that it sometimes appears that composer and director were working adjacently to fit everything together! This was a fantastic effort for a first big international film, and the beginning of a stretch of hits that cemented him as one of the all-time directing greats.

Dialogue is where "Dollars" fails; the dubbing of the majority of the cast (with the exception of Eastwood) is downright awful. Leone was someone who praised visual over aural, and as a consequence the dubbing is laughably bad, with most of the European actors' performances suffering as a result. Thankfully the dialogue itself is good enough to push through this, but it is hard at first to not get distracted by this, and throughout the film you'll find yourself growing irritated, as you can clearly see the actors were saying their lines in English, and yet the sound never, EVER matches.

The music, by Ennio Morricone, is fantastic, and his work on The Good, The Bad and The Ugly all too often overshadows his creativity in the other two films. Morricione produces here his first landmark score of a lifetime, and in the whistles, calls and guitars, you are transported to the Old West. Quite how the man managed to marry the score so well with his friend's vision is amazing to consider; particularly when many of the standout moments in the film are scored so perfectly. This score should be listened to, as it not only is just as good as TG, TB &TU's score, but it also features many of the same elements that can be traced into "For A Few Dollars More" and beyond.

For a 21st century film lover, a film made in the 1960's can be hard to watch, mostly because we can't take the awful attempts at sets and blue screens we find. "Dollars" is filmed on location and on a set that looks like it had been transported wholesale through time, such is the detail. The fact that you are watching the story unfold in a setting that really appears to be the Old West is testament to Leone's direction, and it truly engages you in the narrative when you watch Eastwood ride up and down steep hills in pursuit of a roving party on horseback, because you know nothing has been faked.
Subverting the Western genre by marrying it with samurai narrative, Leone created a hybrid genre that became known as the “Spaghetti Western” in “Dollars”. The Italian managed to change the execution of the Western movie genre forever after his quartet of films based around it, and this, the first, shows hallmarks of what were to come in “The Good, The Bad and The Ugly” as well as “Once Upon a Time in the West”.

8/10 (the dubbing lets it down, and it's not as good as the other two in the trilogy, though I wanted to give it a higher score!)

A Matter of Life and Death

Blurring the lines between reality, insanity and the hope that there is something after life for us all, "A Matter of Life and Death" is one of those feel-good films that you'd heard of, or seen references to, but never seen, a classic British film that touches on the carnage of war (in particular WW2) and the afterlife. It's an old one, but a good one.

Carter (Niven) is a British WW2 airman who, having survived his death in improbable circumstances, is notified that he is wrongfully alive due to a mix-up ‘upstairs’. Whilst he challenges this seemingly internally, presenting it as delusions to others, his new love June (Hunter) tries to find out what is wrong with the help of her doctor friend Frank Reeves (Livesey). Is what Carter seeing the real story, or are his hallucinations all down to a brain problem that could soon kill him in the real world?

David Niven has to portray a man who at once is existing in the material world and also being implored to go to the afterlife, as he should have, and expertly conveys his character as a conflicted but happy man, and it really helps you to become completely sympathetic to his cause. Roger Livesey was one of the actors who collaborated much with Powell and Pressburger (the two directors and producers), and I didn't know of him before this movie, but his understated performance was impressive, playing the doctor Frank Reeves, a man who will do what he can for another in need, even if this continues beyond life itself.

Kim Hunter, who played Stella Kowalski memorably in the film adaptation of "A Streetcar Named Desire", is June, the American army girl who falls for Carter, whom she has thought died after their communication whilst he was onboard his crashing plane. Their whirlwind romance is threatened by his health issues (to her, anyway), and Hunter conveys the character as a woman who has finally got what she wanted, but could see it just as easily fall away from her. She appeared to have been an actress who enjoyed playing defeated or imperiled women, and she plays this role well here. There were many co-starring women here, but none get more than a scene (and most are in the afterlife scenes). They do convey a sense of authority and power however, and it was interesting to see that when the soldiers were entering their 'heaven', the women there are in control, not them.

Marius Goring, as the 'conductor' who misses Carter and begins the whole situation, is the film's comic relief as a French revolution-era fool trying to convince Carter to continue his destined path, but who eventually sides with the airman and helps him in his case against the greatest of authorities. Raymond Massey portrays the first American killed in the War of Independence, and his anti-British sentiments are used to prosecute against the British man in his trial in 'heaven'. These scenes were in part so gripping because of his commanding presence, and again he is an actor that I would be interested to watch in many other films of the period having seen him here.

For a 1946 film, this really does look good. Powell and Pressburger's utilisation of Technicolour and black and white gives the film a really unique look, and particularly in the colour scenes it appears to be more recently made than the date suggests. There are so many good things about the direction here though; the use of locations, the filming of transit in vehicles actually in the vehicles (which even some films today still eschew in favour of bluescreen) and the set designs. Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, a two man team who directed, produced and wrote a series of British films around this time, are at their best with this, the film they are most remembered for. Their direction is brilliant, with the actors conveying seriousness and a sense of truth in the ever-so-slightly fantastical setting. This is perhaps an indication of how two people can be so in-tune with regards to film-making, something that is not likely to be seen today (except perhaps in the mad collaborations of Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino).

The time and setting mean that much of the British characters' conversations are a bit "Hoo-ray Henry" but this is grounded by the presence of many Americans within the film. P&P had said that they wanted to improve Anglo-American relations, and the sheer number of Americans, as well as their importance to the plot, helped to do as such. The dialogues between Massey and Livesey in the court scenes suggest that the two directors wanted to present stereotypes and outdated attitudes and shoot them all down, and this scene was the most powerful to watch, and the most engaging. The music was, like with many older films, forgettable and largely in the background, only swelling to symbolise an important dramatic moment. This is a problem I've found with older films, especially in comparison to the soundtracks of the modern day, which almost act as an extra element in the plot.

Apart from the shoddy appearance of the black and white (and that seems to be down to the film stock, or the quality of the version I watched), colour for the real world and B&W for the afterlife was a novel idea here, and it really adds to the fantasy of the film. The vision of the afterlife presented here is clinical and yet welcoming, and the sets (including the fantastic courtroom setting) are immense. In particular, the stairway to heaven (as it were) is an amazing feat of set-building to see today! There are not many points in which the limitations of technology are laid bare, which is another strength of the film; it doesn't seek to present its shortcomings, instead it does what it can to be innovative and this in turn doesn't pull the modern viewer out of the film.

An old film that deserves a look “A Matter...” is great, old-fashioned British filmmaking at its best. Some may tire of it, and others may ignore it completely, but its standing as a popular film at the time has given it longevity that today affords it a second glance.

8/10

Hostel

An horrific, nauseous and wholly unnecessary attack on the senses and nerves, “Hostel” nevertheless manages to achieve its main aim; to disgust, haunt and unsteady the viewer.

Two American backpackers are journeying across Europe, and in Amsterdam discover an infamous hostel in Slovakia, said to have the ‘best girls’. When they get to their destination, it soon becomes painfully, excruciatingly obvious that they’ve been misled as well as conned, and the consequences are not for the faint of heart...
None of the actors were recognisable, which is fair enough, but none of them were particularly good at all. The American guys just appeared to be caricatures of the "typical American tourist" from an American point of view, but as a European I found them to be unlike the Americans I've seen here. The European actors do their jobs, but lend stereotypical portrayals of themselves to the viewer. The best acting was that of those in pain quite honestly. The two 'stars' for want of a better word weren't particularly noticeable, and I didn't feel empathy for them even whilst they were being tortured.

The women that are at the forefront are the honeytraps, the local women that entice the American guys to the Hostel. They really to me just appeared to be an American, stereotypical and judgemental depiction of European (Eastern in particular) women, which seemed unfair and really took away from what little acting they actually did. What went for the main women goes for the co-stars; they're really only there for eye candy, or to look attractive. The male co-stars are more fleshed out (pardon the pun) than their female counterparts, but only because the film picks upon the patriarchal capitalists that would indeed be the type of men who would pay to do such things. They, like the other actors, appear ridiculous and totally unbelieveable.

Despite its flaws, the film evokes the beauty of the Czech Republic (where it was filmed and not set), and the Hostel scenes are the best of the film not only for their unsettling nature and gore, but because the place looks like you would expect such a place to. Eli Roth can't direct worth a damn in terms of narrative and conversations, but in horror and gore terms the man is an auteur. The disgust with which I squirmed through the torture scenes marks him as markedly above many horror film directors; he holds no punches. The horror however is all that he masters in, the tension palpable in other scenes but missing in others. The cliched talk of sex and such, whilst the motivation of the characters, is ridiculous to listen to. I couldn't believe half of it, and as a student, I've heard my fair share of conversations similar to those featured here, but none of it seemed within the bounds of realism.

The music was actually very effective in the horror scenes, but otherwise is anonymous. This is what drives the film: the effects and the gore. And it does NOT fail to disappoint. One scene in particular made me feel uncomfortable to the extent that I felt the part of the body that I had seen on screen in empathatical pain. That is the degree of realism Roth attempts to portray here, and it hits home. This film is truly disgusting in places, and the violence is centered as such in scenes that are removable from the rest of the film (in which they take you out of it). The talk of a new genre spawned from “Hostel”, torture-porn, is one which is to be feared, as anyone who’s seen this or the “Saw” films can attest.

Whilst truly grossing this reviewer out, “Hostel” only succeeds in this department, and could be considered a success, for that’s what it was made for. However, everything surrounding the gore and torture is contrived, ridiculous and stereotypical rubbish. If someone asked Roth to make a film totally concerned with violence and violence only, it would be amazing. Ask him to write dialogue, construct a believable story and create sympathetic characters, and you have “Hostel”. Few merits and your dinner of choice on the floor and in your lap.

3/10

This Is England

A far more powerful movie than anticipated, "This Is England" takes the 1980's in Britain and filters it through the eyes of an easily-led 12 year old boy, and produces a visceral, jarring view of the decade, creating one of the best contemporary British films.

Sean (Turgoose) has lost his dad in the Falklands War, and without a father figure he starts to fight back at the treatment he gets at school from others. One day, meeting a group of skinheads (harmless ones) and ska lovers, he becomes part of a group, and feels wanted. When the group’s older members reappear however, the impressionable young kid is sucked into the racist and thuggish side of the fad, and realises all too late that the father figure he thought he found in hard-nut Thommo (Graham) is not the one he should have.

The standout performances come from Thomas Turgoose (Sean) and Stephen Grahame (Thommo); it's hard to believe a child actor can be THIS good, especially with no experience of acting beforehand. The portrayal of Sean is fantastic; sorrowful, brash and more than equal to anyone twice his age, Turgoose presents himself as a talent that should not be lost or exploited. Thommo is a horrific, menacing character, and Stephen Graham's performance is chilling to behold, particularly as many of the other characters whom Sean looks up to throughout are so harmless in contrast. Every English person has met someone like Thommo, and that hits it home: this thug exists throughout the country, and the execution on-screen of his racist views are all too painful a reminder of the latent horror beneath the surface of the working class here still.

The film is firmly rooted in its '80's setting, and it feels more deep and meaningful than its 90 minutes running time. Shane Meadows (who also directed “Dead Man’s Shoes”) channels a lot of his own experiences of the '80's into Sean, and it shows, with the impressionable little kid the sympathetic centre of the movie as well as the eyes through which everything is presented, harmful or not. The film is fantastically directed and constructed simply because Meadows is drawing from his life, and the passion and emotions manifest through the film's personal and touching moments.

The 80’s era music, as well as the references to Thatcher and the Falklands War, hammer home to the viewer how they should view the film, the opening credits in particular presenting archive footage of the war, as well as riots, marches and strikes that plagued the country during Thatcher’s rule. The dialogue reflects this as well, and the disturbingly racist ideologues spouted from Thommo toward the end are chilling to hear in light of the large amount of racism that existed then. All in all, the film’s production presents to the viewer the situation during the decade, and reminds us that even twenty years ago the country was below the standards of acceptance and quality of life that it is now.

This film should be seen by English people, perhaps as many as possible; it paints a period of recent British history that has not been tackled too much in film, and a decade in which many of us were born is forgotten for its negatives and remembered for its music and popular culture. This is a must-see movie for any person who feels strongly about how the country has gone through the last twenty years, and where it might end up twenty-years’ hence.

10/10

First Blood

First Blood is a great, yet flawed film that reminds you not only that Sylvester Stallone was a fantastic action film star, but also that even in the heady days of the '80s, action films could be realistic and thoughtful. Stallone just has to glare and look suitably deranged for this role, and he does this well. But some quiet and serious scenes at the end demonstrate his acting quality, and it's a shame this young, impressive actor became better known for his stunts than his dramatic performance.

John Rambo (Stallone), recently returned from a torrid time in Vietnam, wanders the roads of mountain town America with no great aim in life, and is challenged by a haughty town sheriff (Dennehy) who soon realises he picked the wrong man to kick out of town. Soon after, Rambo’s one man war forces the local authorities to bring in his old commander (Crenna), who helps to stop the ex-Green Beret’s orgy of destruction.

The Stallone of Rocky is present here, and his performance here shows that as a younger man, he could have been so much more as an actor than he became (having already nabbed an Oscar for just writing “Rocky”). He doesn't say much, but when he does, he presents a broken and lost young soldier who finds himself totally alone and shunned by the very people he served in Vietnam. Richard Crenna is a bizarre choice of actor here (being completely unknown, and having never seen him in anything other than the “Rambo” series), and in knowing that Kirk Douglas was two days from playing the role, it's easy to see why the actor appears strangely unfocused. However, he does give the air of a genuinely sad and empathetic friend to Rambo; perhaps his only friend.

Brian Dennehy and David Caruso were the two co-stars I knew here, Dennehy’s sheriff a megalomaniac who makes some particularly ridiculous moves that prove costly to his team of cops (including Caruso). Dennehy does makes you realise that he's a man who wants no crap in his town though, and yet unfortunately picks the one piece of crap that would fight back to the death. Caruso made me laugh (unintentionally) with his weedy cop - who knew this man would become Horatio Crane of the Miami PD? Mind you, the acting's still dodgy even here. Just no shades and blank stares into the sunset followed by awful quips yet.

What’s really great about this film is how it's filmed: all in the countryside, seemingly inside every building in a real mountain town, and no special effects or massive, fake sets. Coupled with the serious story idea, and the conclusion, this is a thinking-man's action film from 1982, twenty years before Bourne. The film is ably handled in all respects, even appearing to be more modern than its age suggests. The attention to detail with many aspects (scenery, continuity and so on) is very astute, and for a director I had not known, nor ever heard of before, this film is an impressive one to boast. It's cheesy, and in places ridiculous, but sometimes actually quite good. Rambo's monologue at the end in particular is really good, and tells more about the horrors of war (and his actions) than you would think.

Jerry Goldsmith was one of the great film composers, and the Rambo theme here is one that you may or may not know already. It's great though, one of those understated ones that you hear and instantly get images from. The rest of the soundtrack perfectly marries with the visual aspects, and is a great example of where music and film meet. The mountain town of Hope, and the carnage Rambo brings upon it, are presented beautifully here for a film twenty-six years old. The way that the character melts into the wilderness is met perfectly by the landscape, giving the film's action scenes a real feel, as if Stallone had been set loose to do as he pleased! The action is great also, with real explosions and convincing blood and gore grounding the story.

In watching the recently made “John Rambo” or whatever it’s called, it’s easy to forget that this franchise started with a thought-out, serious and important movie such as “First Blood”. Damon’s “Bourne” films took the disenchanted ex-soldier idea to different places, but Stallone’s John Rambo paved the way almost thirty years hence, and this remains a classic action movie.

8/10

No Country For Old Men

“ No Country for Old Men” is the first Coen Brothers film this reviewer had actually seen (I know, I know, shame on me), and it’s a fantastic one at that. The adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's novel, the film is brutal, shocking and intensely watchable. A Texan man, Llewelyn Moss (Brolin), stumbles on the aftermath of a drug deal gone bad, and his desire to take the money he finds puts him in the crosshairs of a sadistic hitman, Anton Chigurh (Bardem), who is remorseless in his drive to get the money back. Both are pursued by a world-weary police chief who can’t believe this is the last case before his retirement (Jones).

Javier Bardem, as the assassin Chigurh, is monstrous and abhorrent, the character almost an Angel of Death in a bowl haircut. The actor’s Spanish nationality only serves to make his character seem even more out of place in deepest Texas, and the violence that the film constrains for large parts always breaks out when the killer is about (his weapon of choice a cattle gun; suitable for kids this is NOT). His performance won an Oscar, and in watching the film again, the menace sets him aside from the other men; he is pure evil in a stupid hair-do, offsetting the horror with a weirdness that makes the character all the more bizarre to watch.

Josh Brolin, as the protagonist Llewyllen Moss, emmbodies the atypical man "in the wrong place at the wrong time", and his portrayal of Moss as someone who seeks a better life and is damned for it is impressive. Look out for him in many big movies to come, but when you do, come back to this and see where the talented actor got his first big success. Tommy Lee Jones is also fantastic as the chief after both men, and his sadness and acceptance of the changing world provides the film with a moral anchor and a character with which we can sympathise. We may have seen the old, embittered detective stuff before (even from Jones: “The Fugitive” or Men In Black” anyone?), but he still convinces.

Woody Harrelson pops up here as someone sent to stop Moss, and his performance, whilst short, is interesting to the film as a whole, because we see someone who understands Chigurh, and he is our link to the mysterious murderer. Harrelson portrays the character as a man who knows what he must face, and the film benefits from his input, the comedic actor finally embracing his dramatic chops once again (particularly after his strange appearance in “Semi-Pro”).

The film seemed to be very slick, and very naturalistic in its presentation. The Coens produce a film which is many things at once; crime film, thriller, horror, action and drama, combining these genres to create a story which (whilst adapted) is presented as something distinctly unique. The stilted dialogue in the film did actually become annoying, as it seemed to dehumanise the characters. And the music is not really a part of the film, which contributes to its naturalism and sense of fear. The vistas of Texas, and the deserts and towns which make it up, provide an empty and foreboding backdrop to the narrative that complements the evil, ambigious characters and their motivations.

Whilst a short review, the film does not need nor require much more to be said about it. It is a stark and quite disheartening film that reminds us that people can be without remorse or conscience, and yet these two attributes are not only found within the killer Chigurh. The Coens present a vision of a world where anything goes and life is decided on a coin toss (a theme taken to the other extreme in “The Dark Knight” this summer). Brooding, cold and calculated, “No Country...” is a worthy Oscar winner, and a must-see for anyone who hasn’t already.

9/10

United 93

A film that will shake you, upset you and possibly allow you to embrace the cold reality of the modern day and the War on Terror, "United 93" redefines for me the idea of film and can be said to be one of the best films I feel I've watched, though the tag 'historical re-enaction' would probably befit it more.

Taking up the events of the aforementioned flight, "93" shows the audience what could, and what had likely happened onboard the fourth hijacked plane that day. The hijackers more than met their match with a group of people who eventually reached deep inside to summon that which makes us human; a desire to survive.

I recognised one actor within the whole film, and that is how it should be with such contentious historical depictions. World Trade Center was, quite frankly, ruined by casting famous stars in it, and the lack of them here gives the film a more human and, dare I say it, more realistic feel. These are people that could easily be your fellow passengers on a plane, none of them are Nicholas Cage or Maria Bello (as in "World Trade Center", the sensational and Hollywood-ised piece of crap about the same day's events). The actors are fantastic here, no more needs to be said.

The hijackers were very well portrayed, with the air of tension and anticipation perfectly reflected in their behaviour leading up to the taking of the plane. A special mention must go to the head of air traffic control in control that day Ben Sliney, who plays himself on that day, providing an amazing link between the real events and the film depiction. There aren't really any women within the film's narrative that stood out, but as with the majority of the male actors, they provide a realistic and at times uncomfortable performance of the last hours of the flight's female passengers.

Paul Greengrass proves that he is criminally underrated as a director here. Though the Bourne films have brought him to international attention, United 93 should be remembered as his best (or one of his best) films. He sensitively and carefully reconstructs the events and presents them as near as he could to their real counterparts, with great success.

The plane and air traffic control scenes are proficiently presented by
Greengrass, whose documentary and historical reimagining backgrounds
are drawn from to great effect here. The dialogue, at times, is
harrowing to listen to, particularly in the case of the final calls to
relatives before the passengers fight back, as it is likely that much
of what we see here is what was said. I found this to be a real strength of the film, because much of what is said could be seen (particularly in the calls from plane to ground and at the air control centre) is likely to have been near to or exactly what would have been said. The collective shock that all people felt on seeing what happened is encapsulated perfectly in the astonishment of the characters; not hard considering how the actors themselves would likely have felt at the time.

No music was used (in my recollection) until the conclusion, and what is used is appropriate to the subject matter. Greengrass does employ the hand-held cameras rather a lot in his films, and in particular here it does (as in the Bourne films he directed) take you out of the action due to the sheer incomprehensibility of the images. However, his use of archive footage of the WTC attacks, as well as the plane visuals (on board and at the crash) not only achieve an eerie naturalism but also draw the viewer in to the horror of Flight 93.

Making a film about such an event does cause problems; the controversy surrounding the making of the film can tell you that much. But watching it did leave me, a young Brit, profoundly moved and pretty shocked, so I cannot imagine how it would go down with American viewers, particularly those who were perhaps in New York or Washington or were directly affected. The last twenty minutes are very hard to watch from anyone's point of view, but through the violence and tension, hope is found through the passenger's reactions to their capture, and this does chip away at the horror felt afterward.

This film brings the power of the medium straight home. We will never
know what really happened on that plane, but United 93 goes a long way
to showing what could have, and reminds us through a visual
presentation of the plane's events on September 11th that through the
great evil and horror that has prevailed since that day seven years
ago, hope, heroism and humanity can shine through even the darkest
times.

10/10

The Mist

The third of Frank Darabont's big screen Stephen King adaptations, "The Mist" reminds the viewer of the visceral power that King and Darabont can create together. A group of people are caught in a supermarket by a mysterious mist, and evil lurks both outside and inside. With perhaps the most sucker-punching, devastating end to a film I've ever seen, I recommend this film to anyone who wishes to see a true horror film.

David Drayton (Thomas Jane) goes to his local supermarket with his son, and whilst they encounter their town’s varying people in-store, a mysterious mist envelopes the air outside, with people running in, telling tales of the horror out there. Trapped together inside, the townspeople realise that the horror outside is nothing compared to the horror they will face from each other...

The performances in this film are fantastic; and being a King story and a Darabont film,they are incredibly well portrayed characters. Thomas Jane's heroic David shows us the everyman who is flawed but simply faces an unimaginable situation to get his son to safety, whilst Marcia Gay Harden creates a portrayal of pure, fundamentalist evil as the nutcase Ms. Carmody. As I've already mentioned, Thomas Jane shows that he can indeed act with the best of them, and his performance as a normal man in an extraordinary situation is incredibly good. Marcia Gay Harden is perhaps the stand out actress (or actor) in this film. Once the mist falls, and incidents involving certain people begin to occur, her Christian extremism comes to the fore, and the real, chilling horror of this movie is seen through her machinations and actions. It is alarming to think that one actress can alienate so many people watching a film, but those whom I have seen this film with have all felt great anger towards her! She is one of the main reasons why anyone should watch this movie.

The other female co-stars do well to portray themselves as more than one-dimensional; another strength of Darabont's. The old school teacher proves that she is not the poor old lady that she looks to be, and the other women, particularly Laurie Holden's character (the woman that befriends David and his son) bring a depth and variety to this enclosed environment that makes it all the more effective. What I have said about the female co-stars extends to the males, but here there were more I recognised! Toby Jones as Olly the supermarketbagboy is a revelation, his straight-thinking and smart remarks throughout making him one of my more favoured characters within the movie. William Sadler's character, a mechanic who seems to constantly need to assert his masculinity but is just as disturbed as the others within the market, is also a performance to watch and enjoy, particularly the story arc that his character takes throughout the course of the film.

On such a small budget, Frank Darabont has managed to make a film that belies its shortcomings. The story, characterisation and effects combine to make "The Mist" superior to any horror film of the past few years. Having already made two King adaptations ("The Shawshank Redemption" and "The Green Mile"), Darabont has chosen to take a route towards King's strengths in horror, and has succeeded in making his third adaptation just as fantastic as the two previous to it. His experience in filming "The Shield" has obviously informed his direction here, as the almost documentary feel of many of the scenes here create a more tense atmosphere, but Darabont still knows how to portray an epic and breathtaking scene; the best example of this being THAT concluding scene, which in my mind is on a par with the escape scene in "Shawshank" and the walk along the jail at the conclusion of "Mile". What is most striking is the gallows humour and comedy that runs through such a bleak movie. Jones' character Olly has the best lines, one reference to Sesame Street raising an unexpected laugh at one dark point in the movie! The confusion and disbelief is conveyed through the conversations here too.

As you probably realise, the mist contains "things". I don't really want to say what exactly, but portraying such "things", particularly in regards to where they have come from, was a hard task from the start, and so the iffy CG can be excused. More practical effects could have been used, but in all honesty, on such a small budget Darabont has created enough to fulfill his aims here. As a horror film, the movie's strength lies in its scares, and so the violence features highest here. There is no sex at all, which is good considering the situation within the film, and besides, there is no need for it here. The language and general rudeness is no more than your average 15 rated film, but it is a very grim and gross movie.

This is, in all fairness, one of the best horror movies I’ve seen, and I don’t usually like them. ‘The Mist’ however is actually far more than a horror movie, and I think that’s where its success lies really. The human drama, and human horrors, are the frightening things, and what comes out of the mist only serves to complement and accentuate how people can be more frightening than even the unknown, given the right situation.
8/10