In 1999 a Nebraska cop named Kathryn Bolkovac (Rachel Weisz) is looking to get a transfer so that she can move closer to her daughter. Her former partner now has custody of their child. When Kathryn fails to get her transfer, she looks to a new line of work that will generate a lot more money. She is employed on contract with the UN as a police officer in Bosnia. When she arrives there she finds that there is not only a language barrier between the various nationalities but also a lot of red tape to work through. A number of assault cases against women go unreported and she works to resolve these. When her efforts are noted by high ranking officials like Madeleine Rees (Vanessa Redgrave) and Peter Ward (David Strathairn), she is promoted to the head of the department. Most alarming for Kathryn is when she discovers the involvement her own police colleagues have in the sex-trade and human trafficking. Numerous photos of them with girls are placed around a dilapidated den and the conspiracy runs even deeper. She reaches the point of no return by deciding to turn them in.

Based on real events, The Whistleblower rests heavily on the back of an impressive performance by Rachel Weisz. Her character is continuously sympathetic and understandable. Her motive and her drive to try and protect these girls, in part because of her relationship with her own daughter, is one of the strongest and clearest points made by the narrative. Weisz is particularly credible here with an emotive and naturalistic performance. It is a shame that her strong efforts and such potentially powerful material are contained in a highly formulaic narrative trajectory. There's an understandable amount of outrage to this true story, given that the men involved were dismissed but never properly charged because of their immunity. And at the end, the film faintly reminds us of its contemporary relevance by stating that the US still employs contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan today. But first time director Larysa Kondracki and her cowriter Eilis Kirwan have opted to use a very familiar mould to tell this story. Though the film is genuinely compelling at times, its few risks make it a standard and unremarkable thriller. This is yet another story about an outsider who is willing to turn her colleagues in at any cost, despite the increasing levels of pressure being placed on them. We saw a very similar thread late last year with the excellent thrillerFair Gamefor example.

Nonetheless, this is an adult thriller that refrains from including car chases and shootouts. That is a slightly refreshing quality. The film also is also boosted by the level of realism attributed to its location and atmosphere. It's a very cold and muddy setting, extremely isolating at times, projecting the emotions of the film's heroine. While the atmosphere is strong, it also comes at the expense of consistent direction by Kondracki. Some questionable choices, like using a handheld shaky camera and tight framing, makes some scenes difficult to watch. When the film finds some energy, it's a lot more exciting. There's a very tense standoff in a bar towards the end of the film that really showcases Weisz's credentials as an actress. And one of the film's climaxes does not provide a clean resolution, which gives the film some emotional punch. Disappointingly, the script fails to really utilise the talents of its supporting cast. Redgrave and Strathairn, though they're fine, only have very small parts to work with and their characters aren't as rounded as Weisz's. And Benedict Cumberbatch, strangely playing an American, disappears from the story when you feel that he should be more prominent. Overall, despite the benefits of Weis' powerhouse performance and the uncompromised subject matter, this remains a well-intentioned but formulaic thriller that sticks a little too closely to the script.

There's not a lot in Page One: A Year Inside The New York Times that you didn't already know. For anyone with the faintest interest in digital media you'd be aware of the ongoing conflict between newspapers and Internet culture. In the eyes of many people online blogs and social networking sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, are reducing the relevancy of print media. It raises questions of accessibility and punctuality: why should people still purchase a newspaper anymore when they can freely obtain the same information online and in many cases earlier too? The argument is topical and presented here with balance and cohesiveness. But the documentaries few revelations and limited scope ensures that most viewers should not pay full price to see this at the cinema. As with Cave of Forgotten Dreams (2011) this is a documentary you could happily watch at home on television, without losing its impact. And there is certainly some intriguing material that makes it worth watching in one medium or another.

Drawing from recent headlines smartly prevents the documentary from becoming a history lesson and provides a contemporary relevance. One of the more damaging recollections is that over one hundred workers had to be sacked from the Times because of the falling revenue. There are also interesting snippets discussing the shame that journalists like Judith Miller brought to the Times when she falsely reported on the War in Iraq and was then sacked. It's shown as a huge blight on the reputation of the paper that has been sustained for decades. How profoundly reputable the Times has been is something I wasn't aware of till now. We are told that all of the major news stories would have once been drawn firstly from the Times. Equally notable is the more favourable light that the documentary casts on WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. Reporters working in the Times regard his site as another source of information that they can use. Referencing WikiLeaks is also an intelligent example of the way that digital media has threatened to upstage print journalism for the big headlines. It's pleasing that there's real balance given to digital media here too. Although WikiLeaks is regarded as a legitimate tool, there's a moment where the Times reporters debate whether to write on a released Youtube video showing US soldiers opening fire on a group. They discover that the video was cut significantly, removing footage of an insurgent aiming an RPG weapon. This rightly hints at the way that information can be cunningly manipulated and reworked by various forms of media. And personally I believe that unedited and opinionated blogs are more likely to fall into the trap of rumour and misinformation because they are frequently written with a specific agenda.

More amusing is when the Times learn that NBC is hosting a parade overseas for the soldiers that neither the White House nor the Pentagon knows anything about it. We briefly see the panic between the editors, fearing that they might wake up the next day and discover that it was a real story and they're the only ones who didn't run with it. That's an insightful moment, showing how important it is for print media to keep in touch. I also enjoyed the company of reporter David Carr. This bloke is a real character. A recovering crack addict and now a single parent, Carr is a passionate defender of the paper and rather hilariously shuts down anyone who tries to talk about its demise. There's a very funny scene where we're introduced to a twenty-one year old blogger who was hired by the Times. David says that he is convinced that the kid was a robot built in the basement of the Times to destroy him. He also makes an excellent point when someone tries to emphasis the punctuality of blogs over newspapers. He reminds everyone that the Times itself has over eighty of its own blogs, as well as hundreds of videos posted and asks why people would go to Facebook for information instead. His sarcasm brings a lot of personality to this documentary and I enjoyed the scenes with him the most. Disappointingly, the documentary misses a great chance to talk about physical technology in the form of tablets, like the Apple iPad. I was pleased and excited to see the documentary show the device but it doesn't elaborate on what can be done with it. A tablet can provide readers with not only continuously updated information but also unlimited writing space too. As someone who is aware of film criticism, for example, being reduced to decreasing bites in print media, that's a pretty significant point to understate. Overall, despite the small pockets of information, the delicacy to balance the film and the colourful presence of David Carr, I could still only recommend this as a late night television viewing, rather than a full price theatrical release.

13 Assassins is set in the 1830s in Feudal Japan. Madman Lord Naritsugu Matsudaira (Gorô Inagaki) is on a killing spree, murdering people at will, raping a woman and using children as a pincushion. He is nearly untouchable as he is the son of a Shogun. It is feared that if this lunatic reaches a new clan he will be untouchable. A former samurai warrior in Shinzaemon (Kôji Yakusho) is brought in to take out Naritsugu before he can reach his destination. He brings in eleven other warriors to help him and they secretly plot the ambush. One of the men is Shinzaemon's nephew (Takayuki Yamada) and he has to explain to him that this is a gamble worth fighting for. On their way to a village they find their thirteenth warrior in a colourful hunter named Kiga (Yūsuke Iseya). He's more of a misfit that a true samurai. The group takes shelter in a village, working to block off the path of their target. But just as the ambush is about to begin they realise that they are not being faced with seventy men, as originally expected, but over two hundred soldiers.

All of the bloodletting in 13 Assassins is skin-deep. That's not to say the film isn't violent. The opening of the film is sickening as we see a man commit Harakiri by plunging a blade into his stomach. There are grotesque images in this film that are difficult to watch too. A starving woman, who has had her limbs lopped off and her tongue cut out, is revealed to Shinzaemon and the audience. What does this all mean though? You can read the film as a Dirty Dozen-like imitation with moments of courage against insurmountable odds. But there's little beyond that mere incision. It is difficult to find inspiration in these characters because they are so broadly drawn. The film would have been better with fewer assassins, who were more complete characters, instead of these vague constructs like the comic relief guy or the wise old samurai. And with little knowledge of this foreign cast, I found it very difficult to tell the more obscure members of the group apart because they are so similar in type. They can do little to distinguish themselves emotionally with stilted dialogue either. When one of the men is leaving his partner at home he tells her: "If I'm late...I'm at the festival of death". Maybe it reads better in a native tongue. That's a big 'maybe'. There are bigger problems relating to the film's politics than just the actors though. The film seems convinced by individual sacrifice and the glory of gambling your life in moments of national crisis.

Contextually that might seem honourable and moving for some. But there's a refusal to critique or deconstruct the questions of sacrifice in a meaningful way. It makes the film seem primitive, without making a point of it. And it's equally uncomfortable to watch when you consider how much real mindless bloodshed we're exposed to today. One of the film's major selling points is that the final battle rages on for forty minutes. Twenty minutes is too long for me and anything over that is just excessive. The first half plays like a cartoon and is at odds with the grittiness of the violence shown earlier. The group cut down hordes of men without being touched. Where is the tension? And there are silly portions of the battle that diminish the realism. Where did the giant bamboo gates they use to block the baddies suddenly come from? And who let the CGI cattle on fire? In the last twenty minutes it washes over you so much that what happens seems of little relevance. The film is well crafted in respects to costume and set design. But it lacks the visual inventiveness and symbolism of similar oriental epics like Hero (2002) with its selective use of colour. A lot of scenes here are overly dark and the film's tones during the day are endlessly grey and washed-out. Perhaps this film will be more attuned to those acquainted with Japanese history than a dopey Westerner. But I found the continuously mindless slaughter unspectacular and extremely difficult to sit through.

Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts) is a Swansea schoolboy with a wild imagination and a desire to be important. He imagines the response at his school if he died, with students openly weeping. He also spies on his parents Lloyd (Noah Taylor) and Jill (Sally Hawkins) regularly. He's worried that they might be falling apart. At school he catches the attention of a girl that he likes, Jordana (Yasmin Paige), by bullying another student. When someone starts picking on him though, he nobly refuses to say something nasty about Jordana in front of the school. They start dating each other and Oliver holds high expectations for their relationship. He also becomes increasingly convinced that his mother is having an affair with their ninja neighbour Graham (Paddy Considine), who is an ex-boyfriend of Jill and also a motivational speaker. Oliver is determined to resolve his parents' marriage problems himself.

Submarine, written and directed by Richard Ayoade from Joe Dunthorne's novel, is three-quarters of a great indie film. This is a sharply observed black comedy and coming of age story, built from great energy and a script that is brimming with clever details. The centrepiece of this film is the creation of this bizarre, nosey and self-absorbed teenager. And what a clever creation Oliver Tate is. He's such a fun character and a perfect vessel for the film's entirely quirky and very cynical dialogue. The hysterical opening vision of students lighting candles in remembrance of his hypothetical death perfectly visualises the bizarre and hilarious mind of this egotistical and obsessive protagonist. That was one of the most unexpected, original moments and that made me laugh a lot. There are so many quotable lines and memorable little quirks, like the way Oliver measures his parent's love life by how much they've turned the light switch, or when he describes his pipe and hat phases. It can gently nudge everyday life for people in this community because Ayoade has great eyes and ears for personality. I love all the attention he applies to all of his characters, not just the protagonist. Lloyd is, for example, a biologist who remembers random facts like the exact depth of the ocean and in the family dining room you'll notice the huge fish tank. There's also a funny moment where Oliver remembers his dad spoiling every Christmas by saying what the presents are before someone has unwrapped them. All of the jokes here are smart because they have the purpose of building character. It is a shame that we're only gifted so many intelligent comedies like this a year.

There's more than a hint of Wes Anderson about the film and coincidentally Ben Stiller is credited as one of the film's executive producers. This film doesn't need to 'wink' with its humour. It's confident in relying on its own quirkiness and straight-faced deadpan mood to provide us with the laughs. With so many big laughs in the first half I wished the film was more consistent, particularly in its final quarter. The cracks in the script's structure appear as the film mistakenly introduces a belated subplot involving Jordana's sick mother. It's at this point that the pacing and some of the laughs slump too. Dramatically not a lot happens in the film either, which is partially its point, but it also means that some of the climaxes feel very contained. Nevertheless, the film treats you to a great example of deadpan acting. The comic timing of Craig Roberts in this film is brilliant. His character is self-important and self-absorb but he still has heart. He just has to learn that he doesn't need to solve everything himself. Noah Taylor is also wonderfully reserved as the droopy faced Lloyd. One of his funniest scenes is when he tries to give his son dating advice and then provides him with a double sided cassette of songs to listen to: one for the good times and the other side for the eventual breakup. These actors have been finely directed by Ayoade to be in sync with the films controlled tone. Even though this is a small and imperfect film I hope a lot of people see it for its wit, its humour and its imagination.

This is a documentary shot by director Werner Herzog (Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, Rescue Dawn) in 3D. With only limited time and access, he explores the Chauvet Caves in southern France. He exposes us to the ancient cave paintings left by the Neanderthals, who belonged to what Herzog calls a distant world. At ninety minutes long this is strictly for academic lovers of art, cave aficionados and possible cave dwellers. Herzog, who narrates much of the film, has made this as a purely factual documentary. Unlike other documentarians, like wannabe comedians Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock, there's less emphasis on personality or an attempt to inject Herzog's self into the frame. You don't learn about him or his crew. It's just the facts. What there is of Herzog, mostly his voice over, projects him as deeply passionate about the subject matter. Some will relish his input but I find parts of his narration to be a little too colourful and long-winded, like when he compares the landscapes to a Wagner opera or starts marking parallels between humans and mutated albino crocodiles right at the end of the film. When the film focuses specifically on the cave art it's more satisfying. There are interesting points here such as how the rock faces were used like an easel to work on or how archaeologists learnt to track one artist because of the irregular shape of his finger imprint that he left behind. The fragility of the environment is intriguing too. Did you know that the doorway to the caves has to be shut tight so that they can preserve the temperature of the caves? Some things never change. Or that you can't walk off the metal tracks and onto the dust because of how unstable the ground is and the necessity to preserve the prints? I can't say I didn't learn anything. I also liked the scene where a scientist describes the interior craft of a spear and then rather hilarious attempts to throw it.

A lot of this material is very professionally photographed and made by someone who understands films. It's not like some documentaries that are highly informative but also amateurish in their presentation. However, unless you're especially interested in cave paintings you might as well wait for it to be on TV. The film does make for an intelligent 3D vehicle. The film looks very sharp and the 3D subtly adds the appropriate touches of depth to long drawn passageways. For once it's actually very noticeable. But I find it difficult to ever recommend 3D by itself. It works here but also comes in patches and you can expect a ticket price hike. There are long scenes that really don't benefit from 3D, such as the ones in the scientists office or in the long close-up shots of a cave wall, with the camera scanning for an age. And though Herzog doesn't make himself the focus of the film, his consistent narration and cIassical soundtrack deprives us of those tense silences walking through the cave and just letting the surroundings immerse you and wash over you. There is one scene though where he briefly asks for silence so that you can listen to the sounds of the cave and the heartbeats. If your cave knowledge like mine begins and ends with Batman, wait for this to be on television. But if the subject matter stands out then you'll find this to be very professionally photographed and mostly informative, in a strictly academic sense.

In the late 80s a girl named Emma (Anne Hathaway) is a college student who meets fellow graduate Dexter (Jim Sturgess). They're about to sleep together one evening but decide to remain friends instead. Over the course of twenty years we see how circumstances and other people have kept them divided when they just want to be together. Dexter finds himself hosting a ghastly television show, while being warned by his sick mother (Patricia Clarkson) that he isn't a particularly nice person anymore. He insists that he just wants to have fun, despite being critically panned and moving between women. Emma works her way up from a job in a fast food restaurant, to a teacher and then eventually into a successful author. To the distress of Dexter she has a serious relationship with an obnoxious comedian, which puts her real desires on hold. Late in the timeline, Dexter is married rather unhappily and has a baby girl to look after.

An unlikeable leading man makes this one day too many. It's impossible to say what type of movie One Day is. It postures as a comedy but it barely raises a single laugh. And though it also lacks dramatic impact for much of its length too, its one climax is so shocking and over the top that it will leave a sour taste in your mouth. Do not consider this as a date movie. You will not be popular. You also have to wonder late in the movie what the point was. Director Lone Scherfig (An Education, 2009) tries to end things on a very syrupy note. That's very nice for one of the characters but unrewarding for the audience who have waded through twenty years in the lives of these unappealing characters for nothing. The message is ultimately a very obvious, unoriginal and simple one: that life pulls people in opposite directions but happiness can be found in one single moment. Using an extended chronological structure is a gimmick. It allows for little onscreen titles to appear in the frame, just like in (500) Days of Summer (2009) but it refuses to enrich character. A film like Blue Valentine (2010) is infinitively more intelligent because it realises that character is structure. It contrasts the past and present day to visualise the changing personalities of its leads and the impact on their relationship. The script by David Nicholls, adapting his own novel, lacks this kind of sophistication.

Having the film move through such an extensive period suggests that there will be arching transformations in the characters. But unfortunately Sturgess remains continuously unlikeable all throughout this movie. His character is arrogant, rude, promiscuous and irresponsible. And briefly touching on his fractured relationship with his parents does not make him anymore sympathetic. Patricia Clarkson is barely in this movie because she has so few scenes and I wasn't moved by her appearances as the film intended. One of the golden rules of the romantic comedy is broken here: you don't understand why Emma and Dexter belong together. This is a detriment to the film's plotting and the motives of the characters. We're left wondering what this apparently sophisticated woman continues to see in this buffoon, especially when she's already with better company. Even after that huge climax Dexter still has a moment of madness. Only at the very end does he wake up to himself. The actors aren't really to blame. Anne Hathaway is such a pleasant actress in almost everything she does, comedy or otherwise. But this sketchy, underwritten role wastes her talents and doesn't stretch her chops at all. She's made to look dorky and uptight with her oversized glasses, only to move into little but quirkiness. And Jim Sturgess who I liked in Across the Universe (2007) and The Way Back (2010) is gifted too, with no shortage of personality. He just happens to be playing a real jerk. If that's what he intended, he certainly succeeded. As far as the rebirth of frank romantic-comedies goes this is a pretty uninspired and limp entry.

This is an adaptation of Kathryn Stockett's bestselling novel, set in Jackson, Mississippi, during the 1960s. The film follows three different women. The first is Skeeter (Emma Stone), a young woman hired to write a column about housecleaning. She's also wondering what happened to her maid Constantine, who helped raise her, but has now disappeared. The second is Aibileen (Viola Davis) and Skeeter asks her for advice with her column. She's a maid for Elizabeth (Ahna O'Reilly) a snobby woman who can barely be bothered looking after her own children. The third woman is Minny (Octavia Spencer) and she finds work as a maid for Celia (Jessica Chastain), who lives out of town. Celia doesn't want her husband to know that she can't cook or clean so Minny has to help secretly. Bring these women together is Skeeter's plan to write about how African American maids are treated by their white employers. She's upset that one of her friends Hilly (Bryce Dallas Howard) is looking to enforce a rule that will force the 'help' to have separate bathrooms from their white employers. But Skeeter finds the maids reluctant to share their experiences because of the dangerous political climate in Jackson.

Tate Taylor's second feature film The Help is an absorbing period drama, regardless of whether you have read Kathryn Stockett's novel. I have read the novel and the essence of the story is retained. It's a moving story that suggests that change is found in people of all ages, generations and races. It believes in the power of literature to inform people and to change the world. And there are ideas of cIass and the importance of public perception in this time period too. There are no easy divisions in either the novel or the film. Not all the white's are selfish or simply racist. They're willing to alienate their own people too. We see the women's deliberate exclusion of Celia and also learn that Hilly put her own mother (Sissy Spacek) in a nursing home. But nor are all the African American's innocent either. They make poor choices too. An ongoing thread is that after Minny was fired she decided to give Hilly a booby trapped cake, which she later regrets. And off camera it's apparent that Minny is physically abused at home. Though many scenes from the novel have been omitted entirely, it's a very solid adaptation. The film is beautiful in recreating the period, but never glossy. Despite being nearly two and a half hours long the film doesn't linger either. It's well paced and the images resonate with us. One of the most memorable is seeing the 'help' walk out of their homes of a morning, dressed in their uniforms. We see Minny giving instructions to her daughter who is now part of the 'help'. That subtly reminds us that these women weren't just employed for one lifetime.

What's missing from the film are the darker elements of the novel. In the novel there's a broader overview of the violent atrocities around Mississippi that's absent here. It is indeed a compromise but more for business reasons rather than a political agenda. This is a mainstream film that has already flourished at the US box office. If the film was uglier less people might have seen it at all. But then it might have been more honest too. It's a great example of the dilemmas faced by the studio system. Instead, the fear and anxiety of the period comes through many of the performances. Almost all of the women in this film are superb. Emma Stone is extremely lively and funny as the oddball Skeeter. But she smartly replaces a lot of her flamboyance and sarcasm from Easy A (2010) with a greater sense of vulnerability. Some of her expressions when revelations about her mother are announced are extremely touching. But Viola Davis is the one almost certain to be nominated for Best Actress early next year. She has the bravest face in the film and yet underneath her internal conflict is so visible and moving. Her performance, particularly when she talks about her son, is painfully genuine. Spencer and Howard are charismatic women too. The latter contrasts the fake smiles of parties and charity dinners with ice-cold looks of suspicion perfectly. The only weak link is, I think, Chastain. I was expecting a quieter performance, closer to her excellent work in The Tree of Life (2011). She's extremely colourful here when her character in the novel is physically deteriorating and spends a lot of time alone in her room. Granted, that would be a lot harder to film onscreen. The film might not have the grit of an independent picture like Precious (2009) but several of the performances make The Help an endearing look at a dark chapter in American history.

In West Australia during the 70s, Thomas (Luke Ford) walks into a bar where the locals are looking after a sick dog. He is told by the publican Jack (Noah Taylor) that it's no ordinary dog: its Red Dog (played by a hound named Koko). Jack begins to tell his story about how he first met the now mythical Red. Then an Italian man named Vanno (Arthur Angel) shares how he became acquainted with the dog too and how it provided him with some companionship. The men recall how Red Dog embodied such great human qualities that he was made into a union member by the local mining company. And adding to the myth is the story of how Red Dog found his one and only master, John (Josh Lucas) and how he fell in love with Nancy (Rachael Taylor).

Second only to Mrs. Carey's Concert, Red Dog is the best Australian film's I've seen this year. There's so much to like about this film that any imperfections are swept by the wayside. This film looks outstanding. It's been sumptuously photographed in South Australia and every shot is filmed with a sense of grandeur. There's a transcendent beauty about these large, open arid landscapes. They're dusty, seemingly empty and yet always so attractive on the big screen. Director Kriv Stenders (Lucky Country) has also structured Red Dog with more confidence than some other local films. It's framed by the bartender telling the story and then having other people come in and speak. Towards the end, the story continues from the bar and into the future. It's a very similar device to something like Forrest Gump (1994). Through this unconventional technique a number of different characters and perspectives are voiced. Not all the characters are as stereotypical as they might seem either. There are some funny surprises because Red Dog is a continuously brimming with Australian humour, like when the miner Peeto (John Batchelor) tells Vanno that if he mentions one of his stories again the other miners are going to kill him. I love the film's emphasis on foreign characters, highlighting Australian diversity, as opposed to having stereotypical blue-collar yahoos.

Also impressive is the way that theme and image combines so seamlessly in this film too. One of the highlights is when Vanno meets Red and discovers someone who is willing to talk to him. And this is where Red Dog shows its colours. This dog as a character and an image represents the Australian spirit. That might sound like cornball but it's actually represented quite subtly, without characters having to announce it verbally. We see it through the images of Red providing companionship, loyalty, and defence to the miners. And we remember these qualities to be traits people like to associate with Australians. This is such a hopeful and positive film. But contrasting the pleasantries is that the film is also deeply moving at times. It's never sentimental or forced though. It comes through naturally because of the relaxed, colourful and charismatic performances, including Koko who makes for a handsome K9. And on another subtle note, there are several stories told that may or may not be true. But smartly, the film lets you make up your own mind. I love that sort of ambiguity in films. It's a shame that the ending doesn't have the same level of poise though. It could have ended just beautifully, with one single image, but it presses its point too far and too obviously. No matter though, because people are still going to find the rest of the film to be proud, funny and moving.

Three friends are being taunted at work by their merciless bosses. Nick (Jason Bateman) works in an office and is bullied by Dave (Kevin Spacey). Dale (Charlie Day), who is engaged, is a nurse resisting the advances of dentist Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston). And Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) is employed in a chemical factory. He's tormented by his new boss Bobby (Colin Farrell), who has taken over, after his own father (Donald Sutherland) dies in a car accident. He's a sex and drugs maniac. These blokes are so frustrated with their jobs that they plot to kill their bosses and decide to hire a hitman to help them. They are ripped off by a criminal who calls himself 'motherfuc*r' (Jamie Foxx) because he takes their money, only to give them some limp advice. They decide that they will kill each other's boss themselves so that there won't be any motives or links to the crimes.

Why doesn't this fleeting comedy work? It has several heavyweight names attached to it and a concept that I am sure many people would find agreeable. The problem here is with the bosses themselves and the type of comedy that director Seth Gordon (Community) has tried to employ. Like so many American comedies it relies too much on obvious humour and implausible dialogue. Each of the three bosses is so extreme and unlikely that any credibility is taken out of the picture. The way they speak and act in this film is out of touch with reality. Take Jennifer Aniston's character in her first scene. While standing over an unconscious patient, she starts telling Dale about her nether region and starts squirting his pants with water to see his penis And in a later scene she traps Dale in her office, while wearing nothing but her underpants and a white coat. It's an embarrassing and thankless role that's neither funny nor clever. It borders precariously on offensive. Spacey and Farrell are equally cartoonish too. I didn't buy for a second the way that Dave spoke to Nick in the office, calling him his 'bit*h', saying that he owns him and literally knocking down walls so that he can extend his own office. Farrell probably gets the least amount of time and his order for Kurt to fire some of the fat people and disabled people makes him a pretty lame villain. Adding to the woes is the film's tendency to make light of subjects like rape and sex offenders. A running 'joke' in the film is that Dale is a registered sex offender because he urinated one night in a playground. Ultimately, the first quarter of this film is diabolically unfunny.

What's also a stretch for the plot is that the boys never approach any other method of dealing with their problems. No one else in the office seems to notice or talk about this outlandish behaviour. There doesn't seem to be anyone to complain to. The jump to murder is a pretty extreme and ridiculous conclusion. Perhaps if the boys had more of a life outside of work they wouldn't be so miserable. The characters are underwritten because apart from Dale being engaged they don't seem to have inner lives outside of their jobs. They don't have any other friends and they spend most of their time together eating and drinking at a bar. But thankfully, very thankfully, what saves the film are some of the laughs that come in the second half. I don't know a lot about Charlie Day but this guy does hysteria very well and he actually made me laugh more times than I expected at that point. And it's a shame Jamie Foxx doesn't have more scenes because he's actually a great asset to the film too. His scenes are funny because he plays the comedy straight, trying to be a tough gangster figure. This gives the boys something to play off because they're chatty but trying to take him seriously. Just listen to the way Bateman tires to address him by his street name 'motherfuc*er'. The way he drops that line is just hilarious and I wish the film gave him more of this deadpan humour to work with. He really needed more jokes in this film. And given the way that the film ends on a very mean-spirited note I can't recommend it on just a handful of big laughs.

In the Old West, a mysterious man (Daniel Craig) wakes up not knowing who or where he is. He's been wounded in the stomach and has a mysterious metal bracelet attached to his arm that he can't break off. After he escapes a group of bandits he rides back into town to heal up. But he brings attention to himself by taking out a thug named Percy (Paul Dano). Suddenly, people recognise the man as an outlaw named Jake Lonergan and he is knocked out by the mysterious Ella Swenson (Olivia Wilde) and winds up in a cell right next to Percy. When army Colonel Woodrow Dolarhyde (Harrison Ford) learns that his son Percy has been locked up, he rides into town with his men to free him. But the town is attacked by alien spaceships, which capture by people by roping them up into their crafts. One of the people taken is the wife of bartender Doc (Sam Rockwell). When it's noted that Jack's bracelet can shoot down the ships, Woodrow insists that he comes with the group including Ella, Doc and Nat (Adam Beach), an Indian, to try and get their friends back.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy Cowboys and Aliens. It's a ridiculous concept, melding the Western with science fiction and not one with any recent or memorable comparison. But importantly, what Iron Man (2008 ) director Jon Favreau brings to this comic book adaptation is texture. It surprised me what a violent and grubby film this is. That means that it's not appropriate for small children but it does make for a more grounded Western. Out of all the ways to describe a movie called Cowboys and Aliens, I never imagined I'd be using the word 'realistic'. But believe it or not, the characters in this film look and feel like real cowboys, hardened battlers of the frontier. Many of them are unshaven; they drink too much and engage briefly in torture. In one scene a man is tied to two horses as his limbs are pulled in two different directions. Even the early brawls in this film are more involving and intense than we usually expect from films like this because they're shot cohesively and with some gravity. The cuts and the bruises here look real. I appreciated the attention to detail that Favreau decided to bring to this movie, instead of easy self-referencing. Any humour in this film arrives in just the right amount of doses. It never becomes a winking parody because the mood of this film and the performances play the concept straight. This allows the deadpan humour to come through more naturally, mostly thanks to some fun supporting roles by Sam Rockwell and briefly Paul Dano. They seem to be having great fun with some of their dialogue and they're really enjoyable to watch and listen to.

But the casting of Craig is particularly interesting. Robert Downey Jr. was originally was attached to the film because of the success he and Favreau shared with Iron Man. But Craig is, I think, a better fit for the movie. His weathered face and constant grimace evokes Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name. He doesn't bring any of the smugness that Downey Jr. would have. That means that there's less jabs and winking at the source material. Instead, Craig makes himself effortlessly cool by snarling lines like: "Demons took your gold. When you get to hell, you can ask for it back". Harrison Ford is in grizzled form here and really chews the scenery as the battle hardened Colonel. There is a little more depth and warmth to his character, because of his interactions with Nat, while thankfully avoiding much of the schmaltz of Super 8 from earlier this year. Olivia Wilde is merely serviceable but at least slightly more active than most female roles in movies like this. These characters aren't as rich or romantic as the ones from Iron Man but they're tough and humorous enough to be a lot of fun. The aliens are the least interesting part of the movie. This is where the film loses a lot of its gravity. There's nothing particularly unique or interesting about the aliens. They have few weaknesses and not much personality. They're just after gold. And not having read the comic book, I don't know if the aliens are meant to be symbolic or allegorical. Favreau is not interested in that aspect. Some of their sequences have a few jumpy scares, which does add to the fun but others are just overdone or too farfetched. If you think the aliens are a stretch, wait till you reach the Indian campfire ceremony. There's also a silly scene on top of a spacecraft and the last battle, like so many of these films, goes on far too long. That said, the action is very slickly handled and violent and the actors are engaging. I think a lot of comic book and video game fans are going to love this film.