Instead of the famous fraternal authors we know them as, it turns out that the Brothers Grimm, Wilhelm or “Will” (Matt Damon) and Jakob or “Jake” (Heath Ledger) are actually con artists, travelling from town to town exploiting local superstitions in order to earn a living. However, when little girls start going missing in the town of Marbaden, Wilhelm and Jakob are roped in to try and solve the mystery.

All in all, I liked the story. What particularly impressed me was the way that many of the Grimms’ fairytales were interwoven into the main plot. You don’t have to look very far for a reference to Red Riding Hood here, or Hansel and Gretel there. It’s very cleverly done and adds a nice new level to proceedings. In terms of actors, both Matt Damon and Heath Ledger are great. I didn’t expect such good chemistry between the two and was pleasantly surprised when they started playing off each other so well. Lena Headey was also pretty good as Angelika, although the strength her character was given was pushed aside near the end to make her the standard damsel in distress. Jonathan Pryce was pretty poor as the French General Vavarin Delatombe, but I get the feeling this is down to poor writing rather than acting on Pryce’s part. Actually, everyone is OK except for Peter Stormare’s painfully unfunny Cavaldi, who doesn’t do much in any scene except for speak in a ridiculous Italian accent and annoy the living fuck out of me.

There’s a great darkness to the whole film that’s really apt considering the Brothers Grimm’s tales. There’s a scene where a child gets swallowed by a horse, but not before becoming trapped in a huge spider web emanating from the proverbial horse’s mouth. “Fucking disturbing” doesn’t seem to quite cover it. If you can look past some ropey CGI effects there’s some fantastic imagination on display here.

The film in general feels very disjointed as we constantly switch from one location to another without having time to slow down and get to know the characters a bit better. Well, all the characters except Cavaldi anyway. We end up in the forest about seven or eight times during the runtime, when twice would have sufficed. By the time Will and Jake were trying to stop the evil queen, I was praying for a change of locale. Talking of the evil queen, Monica Bellucci was both beautiful and scary in the relatively small role, giving the villainess a much-needed oomph.

As I said, I enjoyed “The Brothers Grimm”. Yes, it’s a flawed film with all the hallmarks of studio pressure rather than giving the director room to breathe, but it’s fun. It won’t set your world on fire but if you want a darkly funny, twisted fairytale film look no further.

Down-and-out superhero Hancock (Will Smith) is despised by the public. When he saves struggling P.R. man Ray’s (Jason Bateman) life, Ray decides to try and turn Hancock’s bad public image around. However, Ray’s wife, Mary (Charlize Theron) doesn’t want Ray to get to involved with the wino superhero. Let’s get this straight. I love the idea of a bad superhero. I’m a bit sick of nobodies getting superpowers and then fighting on the side of all that is good and just. In my humble opinion, most people are jerks and if they were bestowed with superhuman abilities the only thing that would change is that they would become super-powered jerks. Hancock is just that, a super-powered jerk.

I think the main problem with this is the casting of Will Smith. Whoa- now before people start spamming my inbox with e-mails of defence about the World’s Most Likeable Actor™, let me qualify that statement. I really like Will Smith, but when he is cast in a film these days, it means one of two things. One, it’s a serious, possible award-baiting film or two, it’s a family friendly flick which will rake in millions. “Hancock” shouldn’t be either, but it plays out like a mix between the two. Will Smith is so damn bankable that films are changed around him. “Hancock” should be an edgier film. To be fair, there are remnants of some dark humour here- but not nearly enough for my liking.

The film started promisingly. Drunken flying and collateral damage were all present and I was on board. However, something happens halfway through (although I probably shouldn’t tiptoe around it since it’s on the fucking U.S. DVD cover ) and the film falls apart. It gets too hung up on trying to add drama to a ridiculous story to actually have fun with the whole “Hancock going straight” thing. I felt a bit betrayed as the trailer made me expect a decent, consistent superhero comedy rather than a patchy, occasionally funny film with an overly soap-opera dramatic third act.

There is a lot to like about “Hancock”. Will Smith is as good as ever and a Jason Bateman appearance is always welcome in my book. It’s got some funny jokes and the like, but I think it could have been so much more with a different lead actor and the cajones to stick with some of the more adult elements some of the original scripts promised.

Rod (Andy Samberg) wants to be a legendary stuntman and win the respect of his grouchy stepdad Frank (Ian McShane). When it’s revealed that Frank needs a heart transplant, Rod pledges to jump his bike over 15 buses – one more than even Evel Knievel managed – to raise the funds. It’s the standard “raise money for good cause” plot that’s trotted out again and again. I liked the idea that Rod only wants to get Frank better to fight him, but it’s done in a really lazy way. The film wants to be “Napoleon Dynamite” so badly that it gets hung up on supposedly quirky lines and characters instead of focusing on trying to bring something new to the tired, hackneyed plot. I really liked Ian McShane, but only because he’s Ian McShane, rather than what he brings to the role of Frank. Isla Fisher was good too, but she’s capable of better.

The film plays out like an unfunny Saturday Night Live sketch, which is fitting as that’s where they’re from. I’m not sure if you have to be American to find “Hot Rod” funny, but I think it probably helps. Just like I think I’d have found “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air” funnier if I was Black and American. It’s just really, really boring.

I quite liked the dancing/training montage scene in the woods and the ridiculously long tumble Rod takes down a bank, but that’s about it. Every single time I thought the film was going to do something funny it spoiled it. A good example of this is this scene where Rod and his friends start preparing for the big jump. Slow-motion walking to 80’s cheese fest “You’re the Voice” by John Farnham is funny, the crowd singing along is funnier, but then it decending into a riot isn’t. I can see why it would be funnier to the ADD crowd, but considering I’d stuck with this shit-fest for that damn long, I wanted one decent, unspoiled joke and it couldn’t give it to me. The scene that highlights just how desperate the film is for laughs is the “Cool Beans” scene. I promise you- that video is not a remix- that’s how it appears in the film. Shocking, huh?

I didn’t enjoy “Hot Rod” at all. I got bored of waiting for the jokes to arrive and they never did. Run, don’t walk, away from this stinker.

The way the films are “sweded” is incredibly creative. Every single film they show being made has clearly had a lot of thought and effort put into it. My favourite of theirs has got to be “Ghostbusters” where tin foil and tinsel on a wire stand in for the Ghostbusters’ uniforms and proton packs. I guess the one recurring word for “Be Kind Rewind” is “charming”. Everything that transpires has a nice, off-the-wall quality that could disarm even the most cynical of film critics.

However, “Be Kind Rewind” seems to be trying to cater for everyone at once. One minute it’s a typical Hollywood slapstick comedy and the next it’s going for the edu-crowd, trying to cajole them into letting out a snort of laughter (ironic, of course). What Gondry doesn’t seem to grasp is that these types of comedy are at opposite ends of the spectrum. It’s very difficult to pull off successfully and very few films have managed this. Story-wise there seem to be a few bits missing, including the backstory on Mike’s relationship with the rival DVD store owner, who shows up talks to Mike in a way that suggests a history and then sticks around for the rest of the film. Plus, the “big corporation taking over a small-town business” plot device is so damn hackneyed that even Disney don’t bother with it anymore. Still, nice to see Sigourney Weaver again.

Overall, I enjoyed “Be Kind Rewind” a lot more the second time than I did the first. It has heart (although not as much as it wants you to think it has) and some very funny jokes coupled with a truly innovative approach to recreating films. All together now- “When you’re walking down the street/and you see a little ghost…”

Insomniac insurance drone “Jack” (Ed Norton) begins to haunt self-help groups for fatal illnesses until he encounters Tyler Durden (Brad Pitt), a charismatic anarchist who invites him to move into his decrepit house after his condo is blown up. “Jack” and Tyler have recreational fist-fights, which expand into an underground masculinist movement. However, cracks appear in the relationship as Tyler cops off with a Goth bizarro (Helena Bonham Carter) and his pranks go from subversive to near-homicidal. The story’s deep, dark and gritty with huge helpings of pitch-black humour shovelled in wherever possible. Both Norton and Pitt are on top form here, especially Pitt who cemented his place in my “Irritatingly good-looking people who can actually act” list alongside Mr. DiCaprio and Mr. Depp with his role as Tyler Durden. Helena Bonham Carter is fantastic too, bringing an oddly sexy air to the role of the washed-out junkie, Marla. Special mention to Meat Loaf also. I just want to give him a hug.

“Fight Club” was a revelation for me back in 2001 (Yeah, it came out in 1999, but I didn’t get to see it ’til 2001) I’d seen “dark” films before but never as morbidly funny and intelligent as “Fight Club” is. I think most of this is due to the strength of Chuck Palahnuik’s source novel and the dynamic direction of David Fincher. I think that the main reason why I was slightly disappointed with “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is that it showed none of the flair that is shown here. We have flash cuts, subliminal images, jumping film and even a frame of a big ol’ penis. Whilst I’m aware of the reason why there wasn’t a phallic frame in “…Benjamin Button”, there was no reason why the film couldn’t have been as visually exciting as “Fight Club” is.

In terms of favourite scenes, I have loads. Nearly every scene has an occurance or line of dialogue I love contained within, which is surely the mark of a good film. The dialogue in particular is brilliant, with some fantastic one-liners as well as amazing spiels of speech that will be remembered for decades to come. If you can’t recite the rules of Fight Club, you haven’t watched television or talked to anyone under 60 for a long damn time.

My one problem with the film is that it seems to lose track of where it is going after Project Mayhem gets underway. Whilst I’m aware this could be intentional, there is a definite lull in proceedings that jars with the fast-paced assault on the senses that the first two acts of the film were. Plus, it gets slightly too unbelievable when compared to the all-to-real first parts. Things do pick up when we find out more about Tyler though, so small gripe.

The ending is awesome too. It’s really one of those endings that stick in your mind for years to come. Pay attention, M. Night Shyamalan- this is how you do a twist, not your shitty, gimmicky way. Plus, you’ll never listen to the Pixies’ “Where Is My Mind?” in the same way again. Pugilistic perfection.

The story follows Ignacio (Jack Black), a monk who has had wrestling ambitions since childhood. As the cook for an orphanage, he decides that something must be done to give the children better food to eat and impress the new nun on the scene, Sister Encarnación (Ana de la Reguera). So, he leads a double life- one holy one and one in the ring as the luchador Nacho, with his skinny partner Steven (Héctor Jiménez). As I said before, I really like the story as it’s unbelievably albeit loosely based on the true story of Fray Tormenta. Jack Black is funny in this, but not because of the “redeeculous” Mexican accent he speaks in. He’s funny when he does Jack Black stuff, like singing or contorting his face in the way that only he can. The only bits in which I remember laughing were at the bits when he was singing- the lyric “I ate some bugs, I ate some grass, I used my hand to wipe my tears” got a guffaw from me, but even these rare funny bits seem crowbarred in to give some life to this boring film.

I don’t know how you can make a Jack Black vehicle with wrestling as its gimmick boring, but somehow it was managed. My finger of blame is pointing directly at Jared Hess, director of the eternally overrated “Napoleon Dynamite” as he brings his unique “style” to this film. I’m all for directors having their own visual stamp on things, but when that visual stamp feels like they’ve put the camera down to go and have a slash for the entire film, you’ve got big problems. The sidekick Steven is used fairly well, but not enough to actually leave any impression. The comedy between Nacho and Steven is basically “One’s like, fat and the other is like, well skinny LOL!!11” and nothing much more. Let’s not even go into the casual racism of calling a Mexican character “Nacho” or the little fat, Mexican kid “Chancho” (meaning “pig” in Spanish). I don’t know how you can take a great comedic well like the world of wrestling and come up with anything besides gold either, but again this is managed.

“Nacho Libre” isn’t a terrible film by any stretch of the imagination. It’s mildly amusing enough to while away a rainy Saturday afternoon quite satisfactorily. However, when I heard the words “Jack”, “Black”, “Mexican”, “Wrestling” coupled with the words “stretchy” and “pants” I expected more than this. I hate to keep resurrecting this but with an awesome premise and actor it should be funnier. There’s no excuse for it. If Mr. Black wasn’t in this film, it would be ten times worse. As he is, it’s a passable film- but if you’re looking for big, belly laughs- look elsewhere.

Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a silver prospector-turned-oil man, working his way from a single-man dig to mini-mogul status. On a tip from Paul Sunday (Paul Dano), he travels to a small town in search of the ol’ black gold, with his adoptive son H. W. (Dillon Freasier) in tow. But there, Eli Sunday (also Dano), Paul’s twin, throws roadblocks in his path. The story’s very interesting and keeps you hooked throughout. On one hand it’s about human greed and religion and on the other, it could be a political point about the war on Iraq. However you interpret it, it’s a fine piece of cinema. It’s no secret that Day-Lewis won the Best Actor Oscar for his role as Plainview and deservedly so in my opinion. You can tell he really throws himself into the parts he takes as Plainview is somehow likable amidt the increasingly crazy and horrid things he does. Dano is also to be commended as he shows that he’s more than just the silent, Nietzsche idolising, wannabe pilot from “Little Miss Sunshine”. He plays the infuriating Eli with great skill and made me want to reach into the screen and choke him (which I’m sure was the intention).

I was a bit sceptical when the film opened with a dialogue-free 20 minutes or so where Plainview is (painfully) digging and blasting for silver. It’s not that it’s not a good and powerful opening- but nothing says “art film” than a scene like this. For once, I’d like to see a film which has an exciting car chase, some explosions and the like, all to a heavy rock soundtrack go on to win big at the Oscars. Surely if the film is good, it doesn’t really matter about the typical action orientated context. Why can’t it happen? Oh yeah, because the Academy are pretentious bastards who will ignore a fantastic film for Best Picture *cough*The Dark Knight*cough* in favour of a lesser, more awards-pandering film *cough* Benjamin Button *cough*. Fuckshovels the lot of ’em. Anyway, my point was that it’s quite a conventional opening for this type of film.

The one thing that permeates the above scene and the rest of the film is Jonny “I’m in Radiohead” Greenwood ‘s daring, sparse and unsettling score. It’s fantastic when coupled with the amazing cinematography on display here. When together, they produce an effect that reinstills my mostly fleeting belief that film is still a form of art. (Still think it is? Check out this and once you’ve finished crying and vomiting, come back to me) I know I sound like a snooty tossbag, but this film is genuinely amazing. Oh- and Greenwood not getting the Oscar for his awesome score? A travesty if ever there was one.

“There Will Be Blood” is not really the sort of film where you can have a favourite scene, but regardless I do have one. The ending. Much like with “No Country For Old Men”, I didn’t really agree with the ending. It took a repeat viewing to realise that, once again I was wrong and P.T. Anderson was right. I can still see why I didn’t agree with it first time around. First off, it’s really jarring when compared to the achingly slow tension building and growing insanity of Plainview. Secondly, some of it struck me as quite comedic at times. However, I remembered that comedy and tragedy are closer than people want to admit and now the scene scares the crap out of me. Whilst I prefer “No Country…” in terms of a film to watch, “There Will Be Blood” is definitely an experience you should partake in. It’ll blow your mind.

After he finds $2 million in the desert where a drug deal has apparently gone wrong, workin’ man Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) finds himself on the run. He is persued by silly haired killer Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), an unemotional, remorseless man with a unique murder weapon at his disposal. Throughout, soon-to-be retired Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) attempts to convince Moss, mostly through his wife Carla Jean (Kelly Macdonald), that he should turn the money over to the authorities before it all ends in tragedy. It’s a truly great story that sucks you in from the moment Tommy Lee Jones’ grizzled voice opens proceedings to his grizzled voice closing them.

Favourite scenes include Chigurh’s introduction where he takes out two people in the space of three real world minutes – now that’s impressive. The tension-filled motel scene where Moss waits for Chigurh is brilliantly done too- never will a hiss of air make you jump so much. The coin toss scene is amazing too. Hell, all of it is good. “No Country…” is very similar to “The Big Lebowski” for me in the way that I start to name a favourite scene and remember five more at the same time. This is surely a testament to the Coens and the actors.

The ending. I won’t say too much but I didn’t “get” it the first time round. It seemed an odd way to end such an exciting, tension-filled, haunting film with such a non-event. However, second time around I listened to the words and realised that I had been an idiot. It’s the perfect ending for this film. It’s well-written, layered and will only improve with repeat viewings, much like the film itself. If you haven’t already, see this film or I’ll be round your house with a pressurised oxygen tank and a murderous glint in my eye…