A Lebanese man in Sydney named John Morkos (George Basha) returns home from a stint in prison and begins living with his mother and kid brother Charlie (Firass Dirani), while also finding a job in a gymnasium. John is loving but also extremely protective of Charlie, who is regularly causing trouble at school with his mates, particularly against an Australian hoodlum (Vaughn White). John's life is further complicated when he saves an Australian girl named Sydney (Clare Bowen) from being mugged. They begin a relationship together but soon discover that they have a strong cultural clash between the two of them.

After its initial release The Combination, directed by David Field, was briefly pulled from screens for supposedly insinuating violence. While this could have been a publicity stunt, the thought of this terrific film inflicting damage to any community is both absurd and untrue. As too is the very loose term 'gang' used often used to refer to the school kids in the film. The Combination is not about gangs or the glorification of violence. Rather it is about the unruly nature of young men and their lack of role models and positives influences in their lives. The eventual tragedy of the film does not allow Field to glorify the violence but rather he seems to subtly criticise it and attribute it to other violent films like Scarface and rap music. There is a scene where Charlie waves a pistol around in his room and starts' imitating Tony Montana, while on the wall behind him is a poster of Tupac. It is a very subtle and brief touch that raises questions without ever becoming preachy. Further comment on the violence of the film is derived from the ending. While on the surface one could easily view it as bloody glorification, there is something more complex and intelligent being said here. John faces his nemesis but walks away leaving a gun in the hands of a spectator. The films main message arrives most obviously here: violence is easy to watch and cheer for but when the blood is placed into your own hands it becomes a reality of consequence, not for anyone else but yourself. There is a condemnation of violence as a means of solving problems and also an equally strong comment on the naivety of parents not knowing what their children find themselves in. There is a small but emotional moment after Charlie has been brutally dealt with by his boss and returns home, trying to sneak into the house without his mother knowing what has happened to him. You really feel his need for secrecy and the fear here.

As both the films screenwriter and lead actor, Basha is terrific. His character is believable because he is fully developed and dimensional. Though the film does not dwell on it greatly, we know he has a very tough past which makes him an even tougher person. He remains tentative too with the girl he meets, though I did feel his initial contact with her was slightly contrived. He manages to collect her number only moments after saving her from being mugged. It is a very minor quibble and soon forgotten as the love story becomes a more significant component of the plot. It becomes a pivotal part of exploring the ignorance towards the Lebanese culture and there is a very believable scene where Sydney's parents describe their fears of the Lebanese community because of a terrible past experience. I think it is a scene that will certainly resonate with a lot of people. Critically, Basha has also excelled in capturing the dialogue of all the younger Lebanese boys, with the appropriate lingo and banter between them. As a screenwriter he laid a very strong platform for the younger actors who are all excellent and extremely authentic. Their arrogance and toughness is spot on and they look and sound highly authentic. Those that naively criticise the film for offering caricatures would not have had much experience with people like this in real life.

Unlike the other recent Australian film Two Fists One Heart, The Combination avoids cliché because of its intelligent writing and believable characters. Its message against violence is an important one and the eventual tragedy is something that will speak volumes not just to the Australian, Lebanese and Asia cultures associated with the film, but to all people and cultures about the ignorance of racism and the futility of violence. Hopefully the overturned decision to ban the film will spark greater interest in what is a significant and wholly intelligent Australian film.

In New Orleans a takedown of Miles Jackson (Aiden Gillen), a dangerous criminal who is selling weapons, is set to be staged. Yet when he manages to escape the police with the love of his life, a cop named Danny Fisher (John Cena) and his partner are quickly set on his heels. Tragically, once Jackson is eventually arrested his lover is killed in by a speeding car. One year later, facing issues with his girlfriend, Fisher receives a call from Jackson who has escaped from prison and wants revenge. He kidnaps Fisher's girlfriend Molly (Ashley Scott) and blows up their house, forcing Danny to play a serious of rounds where he has to run through the city from phone to phone, completing tasks to try and get Molly back.

To set a film in New Orleans - only a few years after Hurricane Katrina- and have the city ripped apart by a police officer so he can get his girlfriend back, is indicative of the amount of thought or lack of that the WWE have put into producing this depressing junk. It is a numbingly dull, cookie-cutter action movie that does not contain anything resembling a plot, but more the equivalent of an amusement park ride: that is, vomit educing but without the thrills or excitement. I suspect the only factors preventing 12 Rounds from being released straight to DVD would by the money provided by the WWE and the hype surrounding wrestler turned actor John Cena. Both have been put to waste. Not a single dollar has been spent on what shouldn't be a called a script.

The film would like to be the next Die Hard. It steals blatantly from the plot of Die Hard: With a Vengeance and director Renny Harlin was actually the composer of Die Hard 2. What Harlin has forgotten or just ignored about the first Die Hard film was that it spent a sensible amount of time establishing the character of John McClaine. before the real action went down. There was a character to care about and we were interested in what he was doing. 12 Rounds cannot wait for its credits to end before dropping us into the action and that is all the filmmakers seem to care about. Any attempt to add characterisation and depth to Fisher by having him argue with his girlfriend over a leaking sink is outright phoney and embarrassing. They are also not aided by the awful performance of Cena, whose acting chops haven't improved since getting in the ring. He scowls, he runs and he gets mad. With his hollow eyes, the lights look like they are on in this boofhead, but he exhibits about as much as charisma a store manikin and his voice sounds almost inflated with testosterone. By the end of the film I wanted to put Cena and his script writer in a half-nelson. Gillen is just as awful, attempting to channel every screen megalomaniac, but the only thing scary about him is that his accent changes from Irish to otherwise, throughout the film.

Even as a pure action film, the movie is a failure because of its lack of imagination in purely rehashing sequences from many other superior films such as Speed, The Rock and In the Line of Fire. The screenwriter -Daniel Kunka attempts to outdo each situation for sheer stupidity. Cena is indestructible and able to be blown against cars and get up to talk on his cell phone, rappel down a high-rise building, fall through scaffolding and run off, pilot a fire truck and latch onto an airborne helicopter. It is so moronic and unintentionally hilarious that it becomes a self parody, the equivalent of the McBain sequences from The Simpsons. None of the action is competently handled either. The film is drastically over-edited with excessive use of zooms, cuts and the dreaded handheld camera. With little adjustment to momentum in the story, the result is indeed a cinematic milestone: 12 Rounds is perhaps now the longest action movie trailer in history.

What is more depressing about this sorry affair is that it will probably sail to the top of the box-office, while the Australian film The Combination resides with the recent memory that it was almost banned for the ludicrous suggestion that it insinuated violence. I know which film I'd rather see off the screen. After Cena freefalls from an exploding helicopter into a hotel swimming pool, the sound of people in the audience laughing at the stupidity of this film is perhaps a sign that maybe people are not cinematically deprived enough to enjoy what will be the worst film of the year. Do not see this movie.

Amidst the congestion of traffic a man suddenly becomes blinded by a white light in his eyes. He is aided by a stranger who takes him home, but it is this very same man who steals the blind man's car. The thief (Don McKellar) quickly becomes infected with the blindness as well. A doctor (Mark Ruffalo), who is investigating the symptoms, finds that he has caught the disease too. His loving wife (Julian Moore) does not wish to leave him and fakes her own blindness leaving them to both be quarantined by the Government in a prison-like block. Within this compound are more and more of the infected and Moore takes it upon herself to help those suffering such as a blind man with an eye patch (Danny Glover) and a small boy. Within this new order though is an eventual power struggle as a bartender (Gael Garcia Bernal) starts calling the shots, declaring himself as the King of Ward Three.

I had not read the novel Ensaio Sobre a Cegueira by Jose Saramago before seeing Fernado Meirelles film adaptation, but it is questionable about how much of the novel had been left out, given the many gaping holes in this grubby and frustrating film. The Science Fiction genre has traditionally used the concept of the future to compensate for any lack of an explanation for their extraordinary plots. Children of Men, an excellent film, was instrumental in its immersive visual qualities that convinced us thoroughly of a future bureaucracy. Blindness does not have a particularly established time setting or a sense of place which leads us to inevitably question what is going on and why this epidemic is occurring. It is established like this deliberately, but even at its conclusion it never answers any of its own questions. The point of the film is meant to be that even without vision it is still clear how inhumane people can become. This is an interesting, albeit unoriginal concept, but there are just too many contrivances and holes in the story that make this a movie, rather than something entirely plausible. Where did the bartender obtain his gun from? Why didn't the soldiers guarding the prison stop the hysteria? How were the baddies in Ward 3 able to distribute the boxes of rations? How is a blind Mark Ruffalo able to walk around the city collecting clothes? No matter how stylish the direction remains it is difficult to overlook these glaring issues in the script.

The film is a largely passive and often unemotional experience because of the flatly drawn nature of the characters. Bar Danny Glover, there is a wealth of talented and exciting actors here, but the film too neatly divides its characters into good and bad, with little explanation for their motivations. How or why Bernal went from a bartender to a gun wielding tyrant is never explained. His part, while pivotal to the middle of the film, still feels reduced and Danny Glover must have been filling in for a busy Morgan Freeman - he has a pretty thankless role. It would be futile to question Moore's abilities as an actress - she's strong here - but I never felt her frustration and stress to the point where she went from a caring wife to someone violent. Little is known about her character - she isn't even given a name - thus perhaps more time should have been spent towards her as the protagonist, providing some back-story.

The communal elements of the film are interesting but they are not particularly new ideas, no matter how daring the film would like to be. There is a sickening scene amongst the factions of the wards, where after running out of money Bernal's character suggests that his adversaries can pay for their food by offering their women to his group for sex. For the sake of the script the women comply. While this scene is almost darkened, almost to the point of invisibility, the crumbling of the women will likely offend someone and it is this nastiness in conjunction with ugly and muddy surreal visuals that will divide audiences about the film. The point of the film should not be to shock, rather it is about the primitive behaviour and the inhumanity that awakens within ordinary people when we mistaken tyranny for order. It never reaches any great heights and it is never as intense or as exciting as it should be, but it is probably one of the more interesting misfires that will be released this year.

The opening frames of Two Fists, One Heart, an Australian boxing film by Shawn Seet, shows an Italian father named Joe (Ennio Fantastichini) holding his son under water and then bringing him up to the surface. The mentality is to provide his son with strong lungs for when he becomes a boxer. Many years later Joe still attempts to hold this smothering grasp over his son Anthony (Daniel Amalm from Underbelly), running a gym and teaching boxing. Yet Anthony does not seem to be particularly interested in getting into the ring. He has many flaws in his fighting technique but is more concerned with his job as a bouncer at a nightclub. Anthony also a raging tendency to fight outside the ring, engaging in punch ups to solve problems. This is most affecting when he forms a relationship with a university student (Jessica Marais) who he protects one evening.

As with so many Australian films, this is a wildly uneven production that tries extremely hard to be taken seriously as a film of poignancy and depth. Unfortunately it is neither of those things as there have been so many boxing films - the most impressive being Million Dollar Baby - that the film struggles to say anything new. Where Eastwood's masterpiece used boxing as a powerful metaphor for one woman's tenacity, Two Fists attempts to draw a similar line between the action in the ring and a young man's attitude of dealing with problems. This is not a new theme as there have been many films that have explored the allure of violence and the release in provides for men, such as Fight Club and A History of Violence. Worse is that the film is very one dimensional in its exploration of violence and never wholly conclusive. There will be some that will relate with this notion of anger, but the film fails to draw any significant consequences for the main character Anthony. Early in the film Anthony must sort out a stolen car and proceeds with his mate to deliver a message by punching out the goons and then stealing a car. Later he punches out someone in the street who makes a suggestive remark about his girlfriend. Though violent, moments like these feel slightly undramatic and insubstantial as there does not seem to be any consequence. No one ever bothers to ring the police here. Rather it is meant to act as an infringement of the relationship of Anthony and his girlfriend. You can guess how she is going to react - and she has the obligatory view of seeing him on TV at the end - but most disappointingly it is inconclusive as we never know the real ending of their relationship and ultimately this subplot becomes insignificant.

For a film that is so blatantly anti-violence, the film's final third may as well have been constructed by a different set of filmmakers. Channeling every Rocky cliché, not only does the films finale - which includes the obligatory title fight - feel rushed (Anthony races from not training at all to a title fight in minutes) but it is also numbingly predictable and borders on pure cheese. It is almost insulting for a film to be so anti-violent, only to glorify men pounding each other in the ring. What exactly where they trying to say for ninety percent of the movie? The fight scenes do not hold a candle to either Million Dollar Baby or Cinderella Man - the opening sequence in particularly is shot in far too close and convoluted. No matter how loud the cracking blow of a fist is made to sound, there is no tension in any of the fight scenes, or at least a sense of exhilaration. In its favour though, at least many of the pub and club scenes, while brief, are very authentic in their depiction.

The performances are fairly mixed too. Anthony is a difficult character to critique in some ways. On one hand he does not seem like a particularly fresh conception. He is an aggressive young man, slightly moronic, frustrated by his father but with a softer side. It is nothing we haven't seen before. You could take it that he is just an average and simple guy who does not have much complexity in his life however. Daniel Amalm's delivery of his lines is okay, but not particularly impressive, the same with Jessica Marais, who we know little about apart from being a student. Her role lacks depth. Ennio Fantastichini is terrific though, in a very believable and radical role, where he showcases a tradition of anger, determination but eventually vulnerability. He is one of the more interesting characters in the film.

Two Fists One Heart is a mildly entertaining film until its last third. It is material we have seen many times before - performed much better - though at its core the father and son relationship is an asset to the film and significantly buoyed by Ennio Fantastichini's performance. The Australian flavour of the film also makes it a bit more engaging and true to watch. Yet everything else in the film is by the numbers and black and white that it becomes a cliché mess at the end, where you do not particularly care about the characters, leaving it as 'one note' rather than a whole heart.

A young woman named Kym (Anne Hathaway) is a recovering junkie coming out of rehabilitation. She returns to her home to celebrate the wedding of her sister Rachel (Rosemarie DeWitt) with the rest of her family. By taking us through the pre-wedding dinners and celebrations, we discover that this is a family that has been torn apart by tragedy and grief, with secrets that are to be eventually unveiled. Much to Kym's frustration, she is constantly under the watch of her father (Bill Irwin), who doesn't have faith in his daughter because of her past. Kym finds a more sympathetic heart in a man at the wedding, who coincidentally attends her rehabilitation meetings.

There have been few films to match the utter annoyance of the hand-held camera in both the Bourne sequels. Yet Rachel Getting Married - a self-indulgent experiment in Dogme filmmaking - comes tantalisingly close to stealing its crown. The entire film has been shot by director Jonathan Demme on hand-held cameras to take us into the lives of the guests throughout these wedding celebrations. Predominately natural lighting throughout the film is used, as well as long tracking shots, while the only music we hear is actually played by characters throughout the film. These conventions to Dogme - along with a slightly dirty film grain - are used to inject a home movie quality to the film. Unfortunately not only is the film unattractive to look at - many of the camera shots are nauseating and ugly - but the entire exercise feels highly self-indulgent, appreciative of st*le, rather than a substantial narrative drive. The film is more concerned with showing us a family celebrating by listening to lengthy scenes of toasts and speeches, music performances and singing, rather than telling a complete story. Many of these scenes throughout the film are overly long and do not contribute to the narrative.

There needed to be more of a detachment between the audience and the characters in the film. There is little doubt that several of the scenes in the house are well orchestrated between the cast and the director as we walk through and see a high level of interaction between the guests. But we should not feel like another bored guest at the party. While you eventually become accustomed to the directional st*le by the end of the film, the reliance on many of these gimmicky scenes and the insistence to immerse us into these situations is forced and excessive; perhaps more artificial for trying to be like a home movie, when it is certainly not.

Anne Hathaway is terrific as Kym, shedding her romantic comedy roots and immersing herself as a broken woman, who is grieving and remorseful but remains her own worst enemy. With a cigarette in her hand, an eventual black eye and an uneven rock chick-like haircut, she suspends our belief that she is one badass daughter from hell. For the most part she is utterly convincing, perhaps motivated in trying to remove any memories of her role in Bride Wars. The only question over her casting is precisely why Jonathan Demme chose her amongst a cast of unknowns. She stands out - deliberately so - perhaps merely another opportunity to shake up Hollywood conventions. The gritty performance of Hathaway, as good as it is, does not warrant much sympathy for the audience. We witness her grief and she seems remorseful for the tragedy in her life but the very nature of this film - in setting itself within the few days of these celebrations - does not allow her any great form of redemption. The film would have benefitted from a stronger emphasis on character development. The rest of the cast - bar a slightly over the top Bill Irwin - is mostly competent, though you cannot help but feel they are mere sketches of personalities.

Rachel Getting Married is an interesting exercise in excess. It fails because it is so concerned with its own sense of st*le, rather than telling a fully fleshed out story, with an appropriate amount of character development. When the film plays to its strengths and releases some of its secrets, there is an emotional core that for the most part, is sorely missed. Anne Hathaway's performance unconventional and Oscar nominated performance is the reason to see this but she deserved a better film and should have left director Demme at the altar.

David Frost was a television host in 1970s who became the most unlikely candidate to interview Richard Nixon following the Watergate scandal. Frost and Nixon conducted a series of interviews together and many, including Nixon and his own staff, believed that the former President would pull Frost apart from the seams with his experience and intellect. Yet Frost shocked the world when he eventually trapped and outplayed Nixon forcing him to admit the illegality of the Watergate scandal. The film, directed by Ron Howard, is based on a stage play and follows the events before, during and after the interviews, with Michael Sheen playing Frost, while Frank Langella resumes his role from the play as Nixon. Sam Rockwell also supports as a fiercely anti-Nixon campaigner, who wants to use the interviews to bring Nixon to his knees, as does Matthew MacFadyen as Frost's producer and Kevin Bacon as Nixon's chief adviser.

Despite its Best Picture nomination this year, Frost/Nixon seems to have been overshadowed and become slightly underrated in the wake of more popular films such as Milk and Slumdog Millionaire. Fortunately, Frost/Nixon stands very well to these films, offering a rich and intense character study that may well be one of Ron Howard's best films so far. Much of the film is spent prior to the interviews developing the characters of both Frost and Nixon and it is a terrific setup. We are thoroughly convinced that Frost will fail in dismantling Nixon. For much of the interviews he does, but even before this Frost is unable to gain financial support for the interviews and is rejected by all the major networks. He is woefully underprepared in his preparations too, relegating to attend a film premier the night before. These problems and the attention to detail in Frosts characterisation, engages and enthrals the audience as we want to know how these problems will be solved and how Frost – as anyone who knows the story – will eventually come out on top. Michael Sheens, with a quick wink in his eye, effectively characterises the TV host as a light hearted, suave and slightly sleazy contrast to Nixon, He provides the films character development in understanding the importance of not just achieving ratings but the principle and responsibility of cornering Nixon.

Despite knowing audiences' bias against Richard Nixon, the film still feels relatively balanced in its depiction of this very flawed man. Scenes of him being taken to hospital or alone at his coastal mansion are not superficial but remain imperative in reimagining him as a real person – a deeply flawed one – but not merely the monster that history remembers him as. Langella's physique is a significant attribution to this depiction. His burly hulking and slightly frail figure is one of an ageing man that still embodies a fire and on the rare occasions throughout the film that it erupts it becomes apparent of the passion and ferocity that is within Nixon. The mere sight of him is enough to corrode his harshest opponents in the film, the most humerous example of this being when Sam Rockwell's character states upfront that he will refuse to shake Nixon's hand only to crumble before the man when he finally meets him. It is a towering performance by Langella who resembles Nixon and has that same deep and monstering voice. Some may have felt that Langella does not quite capture the slimy nature of Nixon in his voice; the film at length reminds us that though with the close up shots of the fear in Langella's eyes that they are portraying Nixon as an old man at the end of life who realises his mistakes. It is more of an interpretation rather than a complete impersonation of the events, which may or may not disappoint some.

This is a really intensive and engrossing film because of the time spent on the exposition, as well as the terrific performances. Where lesser films would have gloated on Nixon's slipup, this is not about revelling in his mistake or creating sympathy either. It is meant to leave the audience at a catharsis where we don't sympathise but at least recognise that this flawed man has admitted his mistakes, even if he can't undo or redeem them. It remains simply told but effective in identifying this more fragile side to Nixon, no matter how unsympathetic he will remain throughout history.

Bertram Pincus (Ricky Gervais) is an obnoxious and antisocial dentist who finds himself intolerable of people. He has no relationships with his work colleagues or the people living in his New York apartment. He deliberately goes out of his way to avoid them or in the case of his patients, shut them up. Pincus checks into a hospital one day but after routine operation he discovers that he can now see and communicate with the dead. At first he believes that it is merely a hallucination and that he is going to wake up, yet it is soon revealed that Pinkus died for seven minutes in hospital. The ghosts he now sees follow and pester him to solve their problem, in particular Frank Herlihy (Greg Kinnear), who promises that he and the other ghosts will go away if Pincus helps him breakup the engagement of Frank's widower (Tea Leoni).

Rick Gervais made a career for himself playing the boss from hell in the British TV series The Office and here in Ghost Town he adopts another repulsive character. While he is far from unwatchable – Gervais is more than adept at playing a swine – such an obnoxious figure does translate particularly well to the material, despite the predictability of attempting to turn him into a better person. Gervais, with his receding hairline and fang-like teeth, is so effective at what he does that it is difficult to view him as any form of a romantic lead. He is increasingly rude and intolerable to everyone he meets and despite their similar interests in science, he is too unlikely a match for Leoni. Though it is never truly conclusive, the storyline remains intent on suggesting that they will get together, even though you would never really want them to. They do not seem suited at all. How viewers of The Office will respond to the familiarity of Gervais, now attempting romanticism, would be a real test of the films credibility. Greg Kinnear goes through a lot of the emotions too and he is relatively enthusiastic with his lines – he can't do a lot as a ghost – but it doesn't seem to be that much of a challenge for him either. Though what he asks of Pincus is selfish throughout the film, his characterisation never feels as black, as edgier or outrageous as it was in Little Miss Sunshine.

The script by director David Koepp and John Kamps needed to be a lot sharper and to have more variation. Most of the laughs are very sporadic and come towards the beginning of the film, such as when Gervais compares his bowel movements to that of a terrorist attack. There is also a humerous site gag involving Gervais sizing up against a large panting dog. Yet moments where Pincus attempts to strike up a conversation with Leoni using dentistry jokes and jargon needed to be a lot more cringe-worthy and embarrassing for the audience. The film also relies too often on the ghosts distracting Pincus when he is talking to a living person, making him forget that only he can see them. Most disappointingly, the film is largely devoid of any laughs in its final third quarter and instead it attempts to reach for a more poignant tone. What begins as an alternative type of romantic comedy with people, who are selfish and unlikely for each other, develops into a relatively predicable bit of Hollywood fluff that is unlikely and never quite as sweet as it would like to have been.

Ghost Town is relatively harmless entertainment that just needed to be a lot punchier in its humour. It is the sort of film that you really want to laugh with but may end up settling for smiles. It has kind intentions and a few laughs mostly towards the beginning, but in a formulaic story arc, with an unlikely lead in Gervais, it is not the most ideal romantic comedy, just a forgettable one.

In the late 1920s of Los Angeles a single mother named Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) lives alone with her son and works as a switchboard operator. Her husband abandoned her when their son Walter was born, but Christine and her child still happily live together and share a loving relationship. Christine encourages her son to never start a fight but to always finish one. She begins to test her own words though when Walter disappears and she must begin to search for him. Several months later the police tell Christine that they have found Walter but when she is meets the boy she is shocked to see that it is not her son. He is several inches shorter and circumcised. To avoid embarrassment though, the police insist that the boy is her son and that if Christine does not accept this then she is mad. She eventually finds an ally in a preacher named Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich) who has grown tired of the corruption in the police force and their brutality. He encourages Christine to investigate the case further in the hope of stopping the corruption not just for herself but for women like her in the future.

Ron Howard was originally meant to direct Changeling but due to other commitments the film was handed the Clint Eastwood, which could be why the film was distributed by Universal Pictures rather than Eastwood's regular partners in Warner Brothers. Regardless of this last minute decision however, there is no shortage of skill or sty*efrom Eastwood in this intense and very affecting period piece. With cinematographer Tom Stern, Eastwood has shot the film in bleak muted colours, which along with his own music score, provide Changeling with vintage nostalgia. The attention to detail on the sets with the impeccably crafted street scenes and costumes are the hallmarks of a skilled and experienced filmmaker in Eastwood. This is a dark but wholly beautiful film to look at.

Eastwood has always shown interest in the role of police and the brutality of law enforcement but this is not the first time his films have delved into child abduction either. In Mystic River he offered a tragic glimpse into the mind of a victim who escaped and lived the rest of his life in fear. It is clearly a subject matter that interests and disgusts him. He was adamant in describing his repulsion of the crime in an interview with the Los Angeles Times: 'Crimes against children are the most hideous of all. I think they would be on the top of my list of justification for capital punishment'. Eastwood seems to have a great deal of sympathy not only for the victims but the family surrounding these crimes. He expresses this sympathy through his remorse for Collins and her story. The screenplay by J. Michael Straczynski and Angelina Jolie's Oscar nominated performance, characterises Christine as a sincere and loving mother, whose life is comprised of only her job and her son. We know she does not deserve the hand that life has dealt her and we too are able to sympathise with her plight. We are therefore interested to know the truth and why this is happening to such a loving woman.

Jolie has been unfairly criticised for her performance by some critics who have not found her to be particularly convincing. Yet as a very maternal woman herself though, Jolie remains an intelligent casting choice. Significantly, she is also able exude a great deal of emotion throughout the film and her slim almost wilted frame emphasises her nature as a fragile and suppressed woman. Some have said that she does not have enough to do in the film, yet this remains true to the very nature of the story. Collins was a woman in a man's world who was shut out from the answers. The police department, the mysterious boy, the hospital wardens all wanted to tell her what to think, and if she didn't accept this then she was insane. Her fight back from this in contacting the press, along with the help of the Priest, fuels the momentum of the film. It becomes slightly grating to hear Jolie constantly repeat the words 'I just want my son' but the personal noun here is of the most importance. She has little in her life but her son and will stop at nothing to find an answer, whether he is alive or dead. Jolie has strong support in Malkovich who only has a small role but it's a pivotal and authoritative one. Eddie Alderson impresses too as a young boy has a devastating scene that is just heartbreaking to listen to and watch. He could be a very talented young actor in the future. The only letup in the cast is Jeffrey Donovan as Captain Jones whose accent rapidly changes from American to Irish, but it's a relatively minor blemish in a strong line-up.

A lot of the emotion of the film is derived from both Eastwood bravery and the gritty realism to show the darkest corners of life. As an actor Eastwood has always exuded a level of raw toughness. He was once the original Alpha Male as Dirty Harry. He translates his own toughness into his films by showing the harsh reality of violence and death. Changeling does not stray from this tradition and there are harrowing scenes and a whole subplot about a serial killer that make parts of the film shocking to watch and deeply emotional. Jason Butler Harner as the serial killer could be mistaken for a lack of depth in performance as there is little attempt in the film to understand his behaviour and why he committed this terrible atrocity. Yet this is also reflective of the films nature to deliberately raise questions and never answer them just as Christine found in her investigation. We never know why this man committed these murders and we are never certain as to whether Walter is alive or dead. Despite some claims that the film is merely in black and white, there really are no easy answers in the film.

At nearly two and a half hours, Changeling is a slow burning and long film, but perhaps not excessively so. The films tendency to keep going just as you think it has reached its end is a reflection of Christine's search, tenacity and tragically perhaps her false sense of hope. It is a film made with a lot of skill and there are difficult moments to watch, with heartbreaking emotion because of Eastwood's gruelling direction and his careful timing of music. It will be a challenging film for some and perhaps overly grim in its subject matter for many but for those who will brave its subject matter and reality, there is still another clas*y and elegantly made film from one of Hollywood's most talented directors.

Gus Van Sant's film begins with the politician Harvey Milk (Sean Penn) in 1978 recording recollections of his life, in the event that he would be assassinated, as the first gay Supervisor of America, fighting for the equal rights of Homosexuals. Eventually both Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone (Victor Garber) were murdered by a fellow politician Dan White (Josh Brolin), who wanted to rescind a decision about his resignation. The film traces Milk's life from the 1970s where he was an insurance salesman and met his lover Scott Smith in a train station, through to his opening of a camera store as a hippy, to his rise into government towards the end of the Seventies, where he led the defeat of Proposition 6: a law that would ensure that all gay school teachers, and even those that supported them and weren't homosexual, would be fired.

Milk is an inspiring and surprisingly emotional film, buoyed by a tremendous and unlikely performance by Sean Penn. Though the actor has made an appraised career from intensive and dramatic roles, as one of his best performances, he dissolves much of his anguish and all of his aggression here. He could not be any further from the territory of his Oscar winning performance in Mystic River, but through the changes in his voice and his mannerisms, his previous role becomes another chapter in his illustrious career and we are gradually immersed into the man Harvey Milk and his cause. Not only does he exude humour and femininity, but he is highly expressive of Milk's flamboyancy, his passion and enthusiasm of everything he believed in.

Surprisingly, it does take some times to enjoy the role. It is so unlikely and unusual to see Penn this flamboyant and yet eventually his tradition of immersing himself into performances becomes natural here and we are won over by Milk's cause and his charisma. The film places Milk on a pedestal for the most part – and why wouldn't it in expressing the support of equal rights? Although there are occasional hints of flaws in the man, like how he neglected many of his relationships for his work commitments. Penn performance is the centrepiece but he is surrounded by a wealth of fine actors too, such as Emile Hirsch (who worked with Penn on Into the Wild) as a fiery campaign worker, Milk's lover Scott Smith (James Franco), who feels pushed aside by Milk's work rather than their relationship, and Josh Brolin as Dan White, who has a smaller but more aggressive role than that of No Country For Old Men.

The film creates a great deal of tension by showing how much - or perhaps how little - society has changed in regards to homosexuality. It is difficult not to sneer when hearing politicians in the film say that homosexual school teachers will corrupt children, or when Dan White's wife, at the Christening of their child, suggests that talking about homosexuality 'isn't appropriate'. It is ironic to hear the ludicrous nature of these statements today given that we know people are more open minded about sexuality. At the same time however, the film is still a reminder to conservatives that homosexuals are still people and still deserving of their rights as much as anyone. That gay marriages are illegal in all but two states of America creates in reflection of the film an even more tragic death for Milk and all that he worked for. The film has an emotionally charged ending, but it remains in its own context and Van San resists the urge to mediate as to whether society has changed today or not. He recognises the audience's intelligence and instead provides the sight of thousands of people with lit candles and Milk's echoing words: 'you gotta give them hope'. We know for ourselves that this is an applicable reflection of the changes in the world today – particularly in the awake of the American governments change in administration. Thus the film is more than a piece of nostalgia, but rather a significant reminder that the world can still change for the better and we that have the power to make a difference. It is an inspiring and timeless scene, not just for homosexuals, but for all suppressed people.

Gus Van Sant's direction throughout Milk is mostly clear and concise. The integration of old footage is seamless at times and provides the nostalgia that the period of the film deserves. All of the actors too bear strong resemblances to their real-life counterparts, further accentuating the films authenticity. Only occasionally does the film become slightly bogged down in political jargon and policies, but it is not enough to diminish the power, the message and the themes of a very effective and purposefully acted film for everyone to see.

G'day boys (and Anna)

I'd just like to inform you if you havent read them already that:

My Crysis Review is up!

So too is my FEAR 1 Review (on the eve of the sequel being released)

And if you would like a free milkshake please head over to the Chapel and help yourself!

Halleiujah brothers!

- BL