Many of you will be aware that this February sees the 84th Academy Awards, and the French star of The Artist could be the 30th nominee from international waters. Let me clarify, we all know how much the Academy love a good old bit of Brit costume drama so for the purpose of this article I have focused strictly on those performers born outside of the English speaking community.

Interestingly enough the first man to receive the award for ‘Best Actor in a Leading Role’ was a German named Emil Jannings. Given the award in 1927 Jannings won for his performance in two pictures, The Last Command and The Way of All Flesh. Unfortunately Jannings went on to star in numerous Nazi Propaganda films and became buddy buddy with some of the higher ranking Nazis.

Since Jannings’ inaugural victory only six other International actors have won in the Lead category, the most recent being nearly fifteen years ago. The 1930s was a good decade for the Europeans in particular, Paul Muni who picked up a total of five nominations (29, 32, 35, 36 and 37). Winning at the third attempt, Muni became the second International actor to win the gold. Despite being of Austro-Hungarian origin Muni won for his portrayal of French Microbiologist Louis Pasteur. Here’s some trivia for all you geeks out there; Both Muni and Al Pacino have played Tony in Scarface and both have been nominated for five Lead Actor Oscars but only emerged victorious on one occasion.

Like the thirties, there was only one International winner in the forties with Hungarian, Paul Lucas taking home the award in 1943 for Watch On the Rhine for which he also won the first ever Golden Globe.

Things picked up a little in the fifties with José Ferrer, better known to George Clooney as Uncle Jose, picking up the award in 1950. He went on to receive another nomination the following year before Yul Brynner famously won in 1956 for The King and I.

The Sixties brought only another three nominations although Maximilian Schell did win in 1961 for his performance in Judgement in Nuremberg.
Like his fellow sixties nominee Marcelo Mastroianni (nominated in 1962), Schell collected another nomination in the 1970s. In 1971 Chaim Topol was nominated for Fiddler on the Roof followed by Schell in ’75, Giancarlo Giannini in 76 (Seven Beauties) and Mastroianni again in ’77. Despite the nominations the decade was entirely dominated by Americans with legends like Hoffman, Nicholson and Brando all emerging victorious.

The Eighties continued to be barren for the Internationals only picking up another two nominations. In 1987 Mastroianni picked up a third nomination, in a third decade but was once again beaten by an American. (He was beaten by Gregory Peck, Richard Dreyfus and Michael Douglas respectively). The following year Legendary Sweed, Max Von Sydow picked up his only Oscar nomination but was pipped to the post by Dustin Hoffman’s second win in under ten years.

Things picked up slightly in the Nineties with three nominations. Unlike José Ferrer 34 years earlier Gérard Depardieu failed to take home the gong for the title role in Cyrano de Bergerac and it wasn’t until 1998 when the thirty seven year wait for another international winner ended. Writer/director/actor Roberto Benigni pulled off one of the biggest shocks in Oscar history when he defeated Academy favourite Tom Hanks, British Thesp Sir Ian McKellen and bright young thing Ed Norton to the statue for his heart grinding role in La Vita é Bella.

Since Benigni’s historic win, only Javier Bardem has picked up any nominations. Despite nominations in the lead category in both 2001 and 2010 Bardem has only tasted success in the Best Supporting category where he took home the gold for his terrifying role in No Country For Old Men. 

It’s undoubtedly going to be tough for Jean Dujardin to break this years ‘A-list’ strangle hold however, if come February, the Frenchman is in the mix it would bode well for his chances. To find himself amongst such esteemed company is achievement enough but should he be nominated would imply some weighty support amongst Academy voters. Though it would be thoroughly deserved should he win, it’ll still be a shock to rival Benigni’s thirteen years ago. Unfortunately, as nice as it would be to see another international victor, my money’s on Clooney.

Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) lives for ballet. As exact as anyone in her company, her director (Vincent Casel) insists she lacks the passion to accompany her technical ability and push herself forward to becoming a great dancer. When the starring role of The Swan Queen is made available Nina is given the challenging task of performing as both the elegant, fragile White Swan and the dark, sensual Black Swan. To achieve the latter, she is forced to push herself into dangerous new territory.

Arguably as big a name as any thesp of her generation, Portman, may have always been good but she has rarely convinced as one of the new great actresses. Quite aptly for the part in The Black Swan she has lived in the shadow of Leon, her terrific debut, for almost two decades. When working with accomplished directors (Mike Nichols in Closer) or when given memorable parts (Sam in Garden State) she excels, but with Black Swan this is the first time since the 12-year old hit-girl, she has acheived the thing all actors crave; transcendency. It’s the kind of fully commited performance that has been (deservedly) winning awards a-plenty.

Another feather in the film’s cap is the achingly beautiful score. For those (poor, wrong people) that hated everything about The Fountain, few could contest Clint Mansell’s breathtaking soundtrack. Here he has surpassed himself with his best work to date, adapting Tschaikovsky to fit the screen, a task much harder than it seems. It’s a shame then that the Oscars decree it ineligible for not being purely original. If ever there was a need for a best adapted score exception, it’s here.

The script is tight, hitting the structural beats at the right time, ratchetting up the tension where needed before swan-diving to the crippling denoeumont. The dialogue’s repitition does at time, however, become wearisome. The need to foreshadow the film’s events and make sure not a single audience member is missing the duality of the dancer and her dance condescends, instead of respecting, the audience watching. After all, this is a film about ballet; Fast and Furious lovers need not, and will not apply.

For Aronofsky it’s 5 for 5. For Portman, proof that her ability as an actress lies not alone in her director, but also her own bravery. There may not be a plethora of ballet movies to pick from but this riveting, unnerving display of what it takes to live a life en pointe richly deserves its place next to Powell and Pressburgers all time classic,The Red Shoes.

Just a word of warning though, if anybody refers to the previous as simply Powell’s film (as I’ve seen done in too numerous a publication to mention) I’ll personally pirouette on your crotch.

Debates of what constitute a ‘film’ rather than a ‘movie’ (basically anything that a pretentious wanker like me can stroke their oversized beard too) and action (over 13% of the running time must feature gunny bits, stabby bits or explodey bits) could run for days but instead let’s just got on with the list that in no way denigrates the awesomeness of Die Hard, Terminator, The Bourne Films, Indy, etc. These are just my pick of action films with a little more…

Action with a little more…Originality
Seven Samurai (1954)
Everybody steals from everybody, that’s Hollywood. To prove my point that line is stolen from Swingers. They probably stole it from someone else. To say that Akira Kurosawa was the sole source of all originality would be a big fat lie, but when it came to painting the blueprint for action his hands were awash with the same colour as my naughty mind. Huge amounts of Kurosawa could be included in this list (Hidden Fortress, Ran, Throne of Blood) but if one needs to be picked then it’s the MacDaddy of all action films, Seven Samurai. Not only has it been directly remade over seven times, most famously as The Magnificent Seven, but it’s also been massively influential to everything from Star Wars to A Bug’s Life.

Action with a little more…Beauty
Hard Boiled (1992)
Anybody who sits watching Strictly Come Dancing every Saturday banging on about how beautiful the twirls are should be forced, preferably at twin-gunpont, to watch John Woo’s Hard Boiled. Proof if proof were needed that violence can be as gorgeous as a sunset bathed in kittens. The choreography on display in such set pieces as the Hospital Shoot-out (see below) don’t require my bland descriptions. In any case action speaks louder than words.

Action with a little more…Heart
Leon (1994)
Dancing perilously close to missing out on the list due to it only having 12.7% action, I’m gonna round the figure up to an even 13% thus cementing Leon as the action film with the most heart. I’ve done this for many reasons but the main one is, Leon is the film that got me into film. It’s funny, it’s dramatic, it’s stylish, it’s cool, it’s even dare I say it, incredibly romantic. The Nabakov-lite relationship between Jean Reno’s 40 year-old hitman and Natalie Portman, his 12 year-old neighbour, is purposefully uncomfortable but also touchingly poignant. As director Luc Besson said at the time, “I was interested in talking about pure love. Society today confuses love and sex…that is why I chose to talk about two twelve-year-olds, even though one of them is 40″.

Action with a little more…Brain
Inception
For many reasons I feel slightly discombobulated adding Inception to this list. Firstly it’s only been out a few weeks and any ‘list’ compiled by anyone, anywhere, will feel my wrath for including anything on it post The Spice Girls. Even lists of who’s your favourite Spice Girl. I’m sure this inclusion will also warrant more “Get your head out of Nolan’s arse” feedback but quite simply for ‘Action with a Brain’, Inception takes the prize. You could easily argue the genre more fitting for the mind-bending epic is Sci-Fi but from the off Inception plays like a Bond film with an I added to the Q. As great as the action is, and as great a mindfuck as the story is, it’s the two together that make Inception so fundamentally awesome.

Debate away below. And as well as the usual healthy doses of undiluted love and vitriolic hate let’s all come together to try and figure out “The Action Film with a little more…Humour”. Because I couldn’t.

Of course Nolan’s involvement goes back much further. It’s widely reported that he first pitched the idea to studio execs when it was just that, an idea. As the narrative suggests, idea’s are simple, realising them is where it gets complicated. Warner Bros approved but Nolan decided to work on the screenplay in his down time. Eight years later and Inception is finally in cinemas.

You may be surprised to hear that there’s a lot of Dick in this film. The influence of science fiction writer Phillip K. [Dick] (what did you think I was talking about?) is apparent for all to see whether it’s DiCaprio’s troubled leading man or the dystopian technology we can all look forward to. That’s not to say that Inception isn’t quintessential Nolan. The common themes of memories lost, guilt and a person’s need for a good night’s sleep are all there but in the name of all that is sacred and secret that’s all I’ll reveal about the plot.

However, once you watch the film it quickly becomes clear that this is more than just a labour of love for Nolan. It’s a meta-text. The arc of DiCaprio’s Cobb and Nolan’s own journey are too similar for coincidence, the inspiration for Inception itself came to Nolan upon waking from a vivid dream where he was on a beach. Appropriate then that that is exactly where the film begins. Like Cobb, Nolan has delved into the recesses of his mind and built something both spectacular and crucially personal. It is here where the film blossoms into more than just a blockbuster. If Avatar is brawn then Inception is brains.

Further testament to Nolan’s dedication is put simply, one of the most impressive ensemble casts ever put together. Six of the principle cast share no less than thirteen Oscar nominations between them, granted six of them belong to Michael Caine. With that in mind you’ll not be surprised to hear that the cast are all excellent. Whilst Inception is unlikely to accrue any Oscar nom’s (in the acting catergories at least) there are some note worthy displays. DiCaprio turns in another solid display as a man with a past, something which is quickly becoming a staple of his. Brit, Tom Hardy is bad ass in the truest sense, kicking ass and taking names like he was born to do it (next Bond please?). Probably though, the biggest cheer should be reserved for Joseph Gordon Levitt.

Having paid his dues in sitcom’s, teen movies and Indie flicks, Inception will surely upgrade him to the A-list. As right hand man Arthur, Levitt turns in a subdued, supporting performance. The real revelation however, is how the slight (500) Days of Summer star handles the action heavy sequences. Regardless of how many times you may have replayed the spectacular trailer you only get a glimpse of Levitt’s gravity shunning gymnastics and what awaits you in the cinema is all the more incredible. Whilst all those present on set agree that the process was incredibley physically demanding they also aknowledge that Levitt was a revelation. Whilst Nolan demanded more and more from the actor, cast and crew watched on in astonishment as Levitt took the pummeling and took it with a smile on his face. The result, one of the most mind blowing effects scenes ever commited to film.

So yes, what you’ve heard is true. Inception is quality on all it’s many levels. Whilst dream narratives can often seem trite and cheap, Nolan has sculpted a film which perfectly draws you into a complex world whilst avoiding confusion and ambiguity as a result of a clearly well honed script. There are arguabley no stand out performances but that is only because all the players have brought their A game. Yet again Nolan has delivered a five star movie.

Too cool for temporal inconsistencies Toy Story 3 catches up with Woody and Buzz eleven years after their previous adventures. With Andy now seventeen and headed for college the toys are faced with the unenviable prospect of life in the attic. However, a logistical gaff by Andy’s mother sees all the favourites relocated to the Sunnyside Day Care Centre. At the centre our heroes encounter a new posse of seasoned playthings including Ken (Michael Keaton) and Lotso (Ned Beaty). However, it is not long before Bullseye, Jesse, Slinky, Hamm, Rex and the Potato Heads realise that the Eden-esque Sunnyside may not be the paradise they’d all hoped.

Victims of their own success, there’s always a high level of expectation whenever Pixar release a new flick, but with fifteen years since their feature length debut it’s safe to say people expect a little polish here and there. Despite the timeless appearance of the first instalment Toy Story 3 appears even smoother, standing up even under the microscopic scrutiny of an I-max screen. Also, like rival franchise Shrek the film is available to view in 3D and as we’ve seen recently, 3D is not always a guaranteed enhancement. Thankfully, the Pixar team are once again ahead of the technological pack. Their use of the third dimension is sparing and subtle, only really even noticeable during two particular scenes in which it unquestionably enhances both the spectacle and the drama of the proceedings. For the majority of the film the technology takes a back seat to the story, something which a number of film makers should take on board.

As you’d expect, where there are new toys there are new celebrity voices. In addition to Keaton and Beaty there’s Jeff Garlin, Kristen Schaal, Whoopi Goldberg, Bonnie Hunt and scene stealing turn from Timothy Dalton as lederhosen wearing thespian, Mr Prickle pants.

If there were any doubt left in your mind as to whether Toy Story 3 can reach the emotive heights hit by Pixar’s more recent, more ‘adult’ efforts (Wall*e and Up), then fear not. It would appear that over the past fifteen years the C.G. artform has matured along with its audience and as a result Woody, Buzz and co. have lost none of their heart. You may have already been warned that the film may make you cry. If not then let me say this… the film may make you cry. I will go no further than that, partly to avoid spoilers and partly to avoid reopening the flood gates. All I will stress is that this is, yet again a classic movie which is not only suitable for all ages but also perfect for all ages. You’ll watch it if you know what’s good for you.

Toy Story 3 is released on (Monday) July 19th.

5) Look Who’s Talking
It’s a brave film that features sperm in its opening credits. Of course, there’s nothing pornographic about the opening of Amy Heckerling’s 1989 baby talk comedy. As the titles roll we watch a brilliantly well made recreation of some microscopic post coitus goings on. Set, ever so suitably, to ‘I get Around’ by The Beach Boys we witness nature’s greatest miracle as millions of sperm race frantically towards what is fundamentally Kirstie Alley’s egg. Ending with the subsequent fertilization of said egg the short scene is most definitely one of the more memorable scenes from the entire trilogy.  

4) Airplane
In this disaster movie spoof things go from bad to worse for the passengers of the most ill-fated flight in movie history. Shortly after the serving of the in-flight meal, meat or fish, around half the passengers begin to suffer unusual symptoms. The call goes out for a doctor on board, a call answered by none other than Leslie Nielsen in what proved to be the first of many, many comedic roles. Nielsen’s Dr Rumack is taken to the passenger exhibiting the most extreme symptoms. As Rumack attempts to pin point a diagnosis the woman regurgitates an egg, then another and another. Whilst the absurdity of the event flabbergasts the passengers and cabin crew Nielsen plays it dead straight, simply removing each egg in turn placing them onto the woman’s fold out tray.

Eventually, when the gags repetition has reached optimum hilarity Nielsen cracks open an egg on the side of a plate and small blue bird goes fluttering into the cabin. Whilst the scene slots nicely into the film’s constant absurdity it is Nielsen’s dogmatic performance that has made this scene so funny and so timeless.  

3) Jurassic Park
By the time the tour reaches the genetics lab on Isla Sorna you have pretty much forgotten about the poor chap who got ripped in half in opening two minutes of the movie. Post opening titles the movie turns into a heart warming orgy of frolicking Vegi-saurs and sound bites of Sam Neill berating the shit out of small children.
In an unlikely but fortuitous turn of events Neil’s paleontologist Dr Alan Grant, along with his on again off again, girlfriend (Laura Dern) and his eccentric tour guide (Dickie Attenbrough) arrive in the lab just in time to witness the birth of one of the genetically modified monsters. As an above average sized egg begins to crack the suspense is palpable.

In a fraction of a second Dr Grant’s life’s work peters into obsolescence and his excitement is replaced by a sense of personal impending doom.  Whilst it’s not a boy with the face of a shark or something cool like that, Dr Grant quickly identifies the hatchling as a Velociraptor and with that revelation we join Dr Grant on the train to doomsville. Before long the body count begins piling up. The annoying guy dies, the  fat guy dies, then the black guy dies, then the British guys dies oh, and Sam Neil doesn’t die but he does hate kids a fraction less than he did at the beginning.

2) Alien
Few films have their iconography etched into people’s unconscious phobias more than Ridley Scott’s seventies Sci-fi master piece. The entire life-cycle of the terrifying Xenomorphs, from egg to alien, plays out like Charles Darwin’s own personal nightmare, but it’s the pupate stage of said life-cycle that qualifies Alien for this particular top five.
From the moment a select group of the Nostromo crew venture outside the protective shell of their mother-ship to ascertain the origin of a mysterious distress signal their fate is sealed. Stumbling across a patch of over sized eggs the curious crew squat down for a closer look unaware of the danger of what lies within.

The top of the egg peels back slow enough to stimulate the interest of the surrounding astronauts but the scene and movie take an abrupt turn for the worse when an alien ‘face-hugger’ leaps forth from the murky recesses of the egg. Whilst the egg itself is simply housing for the monstrous procreator within it has become symbolic of the foreboding terror which has become a staple of the franchise as a whole.

1) Cool Hand Luke 
There are few actors, past or present that epitomize the term ‘cool’ more than Paul Newman and there’s no finer demonstration of his unflappable demeanor than in Stuart Roseburg’s 1967 drama Cool Hand Luke. Imprisoned in a Florida prison camp for cutting the heads off of parking meters, Newman’s non-conformist veteran slowly ingratiates himself into the prisoner’s makeshift hierarchy, earning the nickname ‘Cool Hand’ after a particularly ballsy poker bluff.  Luke’s ability to rise above his dire surroundings earns him the respect of his fellow inmates and this is never more evident than in a spur of the moment bet which has arguably become the film’s most iconic scene. Cool as you like, Luke boldly exclaims that he can eat the substantial sum of fifty hard boiled eggs in no more than one hour. What is, for all intensive purposes, an absurdly irrelevant display of masculinity soon becomes an scene which to me at least, demonstrates the almost indestructible resolve of the human spirit. Alternatively it demonstrates some of the crazy shit people do to stave off boredom.

Jumping all over Newman’s boast like ants at a picnic his fellow inmates magnify his bold claim into an event of almost Olympian grandeur. What follows is a montage of the aforementioned hour charting Luke’s attempt to consume over four dozen eggs. As time passes Newman’s brow moistens and his skin tone changes to an unsettling shade of green but his cool never wavers. The more Newman consumes the closer he comes towards the proverbial finish line his fellow inmates heckle/applaud him depending on their own financial interest in the feat. The fact that this scene is one of the most recognizable in Newman’s repertoire is a testament to his performance and one of the reasons why his presence in the movie biz is so sorely missed.

So what’s been left out? That’s it, March and April. As history decrees it so it must be true. For the average film-fan all you can do in these months is clutch your cock and wait for the summer. Yet every now and again a film pops along in these months that you can’t label, you can’t easily categorise.

The only thing you can say with any certainty is that this film Kick’s Fucking Ass.

The master stroke of what will quite possibly go down as the ‘Film of the Year’, (I shit you not) is that Matthew Vaughn did this by himself. I don’t mean in an auteur/’director is king’ kinda way but in a ‘fuck the studio, there’s stuff I wanna do that you realy ain’t gonna like’ kinda way. And it’s this freedom that makes Kick Ass just so damn exceptional.

Fed up of having his butt handed to him on a plate by bullies and muggers, Dave Lizewski decides enough is enough. Baffled by the fact that no-one has thought of it before Dave dons a mask and sets out into the street. After some not-so-super attempts to save the day, Dave, aka Kick Ass, finally gets the hang of crime busting. Enough so that he attracts the attention of ‘good guys’, Big Daddy (Nic Cage) and Hit-Girl (Chloe Moretz), as well as uber-baddy Frank D’Amico (Mark Strong).

It’s safe to say Dave’s first foray into vigilante justice goes pretty much as expected. And it’s this that sets Kick Ass apart from the ‘oh-so’ many comic book movies that try to be a little different. Whereas Spidey may pratfall his way through the ‘learning stage’, Kick Ass’s education is much less family friendly. And importantly much more realistic.

As subversive of the genre as Watchmen, Kick Ass is, of course, still just a comic book movie but one that takes an almighty shit on the rest. This isn’t to berate Peter Parker et al. There’s no way Kick Ass could have found the light of day without it’s predecessors, but it finds the flaws in them with some menace it does beg the question where can Iron Man go this summer?

As Dave, Brit Aaron Johnson nails it, all highpitched, voice-breaking and gormless faces. The makers also knows that Kick Ass is so inept at his new career path that his alter-ego differs from his real life persona by the distance of a gnat’s pube. It’s pure luck that no-one who knows Dave also gets to meet Kick Ass as the unmasking would be immediate.

Then there’s Big Daddy and Hit Girl. What is it that kids type nowadays, OMFG? Yeah that’ll do. Never one to give up faith in Mr. Cage, despite his valiant attempts to ruin his career with the likes of The Wicker Man and countless other piss-poor remakes, when he hits he really hits. The secret to him hitting more is playing just the wrong side of crazy. As Damon MacReady the world’s best/worst father of all time (depending on your moral stance) Nic is all silly laughs and stupid tache’s. As Big Daddy he’s Adam West era Batman, with the killing power of Leon.

Like Leon, Big Daddy also has his own schoolgirl assassin in training. But whereas Mathilda never passed the “Can we try with real bullets now?” SAT, Hit-Girl has already graduated with honours. Her entrance, fuck it, every scene she’s in, is jaw-droppingly awesome. Watching her rip through baddies with the dexterity of a world class conductor, in some of the finest action scenes you’ll ever see, may be the most fun you’ll have had in a cinema for a decade.

So as the credits role you may, like Maggie in The Simpsons Movie, be tempted to utter the word “sequel”. But we’re getting ahead of ourselves. For now let’s just sit back and enjoy a film that comes along all too rarely, a film that will reignite your love of celluloid. A film that… well, you can finish that sentence.

Name In Your Pants
Calvin Klein. Well, you asked for it. Haven’t you ever seen Back To The Future? OK, beneath Calvin Klein it says Adam Buxton in big gold letters that my Mum embroidered.

Occupation
Sometimes half of Adam & Joe. Used to do The Adam & Joe Show (homemade programme that looked liked You Tube before You Tube existed) on Channel 4 in the late 90’s, early Noughties, did radio show with Joe on BBC 6 Music (currently on hiatus), make videos for the internet, host BUG at the BFI Southbank where we show music videos and I talk balls between. Also I do some acting once in a while and pick up litter.

Bank Details
Dr A Buckles, Bank Of Nigeria, Exciting Opportunity dept. Account number: 55500769

What is your Most Favourite Bestest Film In The Whole Wide World?
The problem with picking a favourite film is that people tend to define you by your choice which I appreciate is also the point. All too often however, you end up being dismissed either as pretentious if you pick something obscure or European, thick if you pick something very mainstream or a genius if you happen to pick the favourite film of the person you’re talking to. Or maybe that’s just the judgemental prats I know. The other problem is that most people’s favourites change fairly often if they see enough films. I mean, if your favourite ever film is Avatar then the chances are you have probably only ever seen Avatar, Titanic, Ice Age 2 and Things To Do In Denver When You’re Dead. Anyway, I’ll try to stop being a dick for a moment and answer the question…

A film I keep coming back to is Crimes and Misdemeanors directed by Woody Allen. I know most Woody Allen fans would probably chose Cassandra’s Dream starring Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell but I’m unpredictable that way. My relationship with Woodles began when I stumbled across Annie Hall on TV in one of those teenage years when every bit of culture you enjoy seems to become a fundamental part of you thereafter. I was impressed by a scene in which Woody magically produces the writer Marshall McLuhan to back him up in an argument he’s having about Marshall McLuhan in a cinema queue. I’d never seen that kind of post modern flourish in a film before and it blew my teeny mind. I consumed as many of his films as I could over the next few months and the best ones seemed to marry these kinds of clever ideas with scenes that were funny and genuinely moving in equal measure. How easy he made it look!

Crime and Misdemeanors features a couple of narratives that run parallel. In the serious one Martin Landau plays Judah Rosenthal, a wealthy optometrist (told by his father as a boy that ‘the eyes of God are upon us always”!) who resorts to drastic measures when an affair with super needy Dolores (Angelica Houston) threatens to unravel his comfortable family life.

The funnier, but still pretty tragic narrative features Woody as Cliff Stern, a documentarian who’s marriage is in its final stages, struggling to find the money to complete a film about an inspirational (fictional) philosopher called Louis Levy. Reluctantly Cliff resorts to earning some cash by doing a fawning profile of his arrogant twat brother in law Lester, a millionaire TV comedy producer played to unctuous perfection by Alan Alda. The scenes with Lester spouting his pompous and superficial comedy scientist theories are some of my faves. “If it bends, it’s funny, if it breaks it’s not funny!” he drivels for the documentary crew as Woody looks around in vain for someone to share his contempt. Finally we see Lester sit open mouthed through a rough cut of the profile in which Cliff with kamikaze glee, has juxtaposed the footage of his subject pontificating with shots of donkeys braying and Mussolini looking self satisfied. It’s a good example of a scene that doesn’t feel particularly realistic but is enjoyable nevertheless.

Similarly a scene in which Judah discusses faith and morality with his rabbi friend Ben is comforting precisely because it’s not naturalistic. With none of the inarticulate stumbles and shaky convictions that characterize most real conversations of this kind
Judah outlines his view of the world as harsh, empty of values and with a pitiless moral structure, while the rabbi sees meaning and forgiveness and a higher power (I nicked the last part of that sentence from a review on Amazon). Woody even piles on the layers of irony and meaning by afflicting the rabbi character with failing sight, hence his visit to the optometrist. Is his faith blinding him to the truth of a Godless universe or is he the one who can truly see despite his encroaching blindness?! I made up that sentence myself but plan to post it on Amazon later today.

It’s a film in which the guilty go unpunished and the righteous go unrewarded but as Judah points out, that’s real life in all its crapness. “If you want happy endings, go and see a Hollywood movie” he says when he and Cliff meet for the first time at the end of the film. Still there’s enough insight, optimism and bleak chuckles in Crimes & Misdemeanours that you’re left feeling thoroughly uplifted; something I can’t say for a most films that rub life’s injustices in your face in the name of integrity.

What’s Your Favourite Line From A Film?
There’s a lot of great lines in Crimes & Misdemeanours but I’m going to cheat and pick a line from another favourite Woody Allen film, Hannah & Her Sisters, that sums up a lot of what I love about his stuff: “How should I know why there were Nazis? I don’t even know how the can opener works”

What’s The First Film You Remember?
Possibly The Wizard Of Oz which used to get shown at Christmas every year when I was growing up in the 70’s so to me it was always imbued with a very magical sense of special occasionalism. Thanks to my Dad’s job as a travel writer we used to travel to the US once a year when I was little and whether it was Christmas or not, The Wizard Of Oz always seemed to be showing on at least one channel whenever you turned on an American TV. In the days before you could choose to watch something whenever you wished, that was quite something. There’s so much to love about the film itself it’s hard to know where to start, but I guess the shift from black and white to colour when Dorothy awakes in Oz was the first thing that struck me. It so brilliantly tapped in to the distrust that many young children have for anything black and white and to be rewarded for struggling through the comparatively dull first few minutes with the outrageously colourful world of Oz was very satisfying. Then I couldn’t get over the munchkins! I’d never seen a person that size in real life so to me they were 100% enchanting and other-worldly. Finally to find out the scary wizard was just a little man behind a curtain! Holy shit!! Once you’ve hoisted that piece of info on board, you’re ready for the world!

What’s The Last Film You Saw?
The last film I genuinely saw was Alvin & The Chipmunks 2, The Squeakquel but that was primarily because my sons wanted to see it so I won’t give a full account of my response, suffice to say that I’m still trying to deal with how they can get chipmunks not just to sing, but to sing so well! Also I found the brunette lady chipmunk with glasses sexually attractive which is troubling.

A film I saw recently that came out a while back was Dean Spanley about a priest who, when drinking a certain kind of sweet wine, channels the spirit of a much loved, long lost dog belonging to a curmudgeonly Peter O Toole who’s been miserable since his son died in the war. I know, not another drunk-priest-dog-channeling-curmudgeonly-bereaved-Dad movie, but I loved it. It was beautifully lit. I had read in a review that it was beautifully lit before I saw it, and sure enough it really was beautifully lit. With each successive scene I found myself thinking, ‘gosh look how beautifully lit that is!’ Thematically it features two of my favourite things: Grumpy Dads and Reincarnation. Also Peter O Toole is very good and Bryan Brown is dependably Brownish and Australian as he was so memorably in Cocktail, a film I have an indefensible soft spot for.

What’s The Worst Film You’ve Ever Seen
Worsties eh? Hmmm, this is fraught with as many problems as picking faves but I’m going to throw myself into this one and go with a totally emotional response to quite a cerebral film beloved not only of my friend Joe (Cornish) but many other highly intelligent cineastes who may well hunt me down after reading this and beat me ironically to death with copies of Sight & Sound. It’s Michael Haneke’s original 1997 version of Funny Games. I haven’t seen his 2008 version but I understand it’s nearly identical so I’m sure I’d dislike it just as much.

It’s about a family that is tortured and murdered by a couple of annoying smirky men in order that we the audience can ask ourselves questions about violence and the media. My problem was that I kept thinking about how sad it would be for a family to be tortured to death in front of eachother and that got in the way of my question asking. Friends have told me I’m thick and missed the point but I feel as if I was familiar with the point before seeing the film so all I was left with was some upsetting murder and a bit of tinkering with the fourth wall by men in tennis whites. But maybe all that was the point. In a cinematic world where Michael Bay is a powerful and important figure, I suppose it’s a good thing that Michael Haneke is out there as long as he stays out there and doesn’t come round to borrow eggs. I also thought Wanted with Angelina Jolie was pretty fucking rubbish.

What Do You Love About Movies?
Being transported and Revels, the Russian Roulette style chocolate treatbag sweets.

PS. I’m ashamed to admit I hadn’t actually seen Avatar when I wrote these replies for Owen. I was being snobbish. I’ve seen it now and it’s fricken amazing!

Mr. Adam Buxton is one half of the Adam and Joe Show on BBC6, has a new BBC2 comedy show entitled The Persuasionists and has featured in Hot Fuzz, Stardust and Son Of Rambow. He is currently touring ‘Bug’ for details go to http://adam-buxton.co.uk/ad/
He’s also a bloody lovely chap.

Ok so it’s an adaptation of Jane Austen’s novel and one of the most beloved books of all time. I still have my A’level copy on my book shelf with all the notes written in the margin and fell in love with the story then, however I’m not a big fan of reading unless I have an excess of free time, so the film does the job in 129 minutes and it does it, so so well.

The story is so familiar is hardly seems worth mentioning the plot, but I will anyway. Elizabeth Bennett is one of five sisters, whose mother is desperately trying to marry them off in the attempt to set them secure futures, four of our five sisters too can only seem to think of marraige. This is Sex in the City in the 19th century except our main protagonist Elizabeth Bennett is not interested in any of that nonsense, which is why I love her so so much. Lizzy is smart, witty, stubborn, spirited and quite frankly a bit of a smarty pants, unlike her sisters she wants more out of life; “only the deepest love will persuade me into matrimony, which is why I shall die an old maid.” Until that day, which she appears to be in no rush for, she sets out to live her life with a broader perspective. That day comes when she meets Mr. Darcy, an aloof yet handsome gentleman who unintentionally offends her pride on their first meeting. Stubborn Lizzy makes her mind up about him immediately and as she is of “inferior birth,” Darcy has some real issues admitting his affections for her. So will they ever get over their pride and prejudice and get together?…

We are shown the story through Lizzy’s eyes. Director Joe Wright fully immerses us in her world, the sets and costumes are done with fine detail and the countryside is used to such an extent that Thomas Hardy would be proud. The set feels real and rustic, costumes are slightly dirty and little makeup appears to be used, an unromantic look is a good contrast and well needed so you can enjoy the story. Kiera Knightly does a fine job as Lizzy, bringing her tomboy, spirited charisma to life. She is so infectiously spirited and passionate that it’s impossible not to fall in love with her. There’s also genuine chemistry between her and Macfadyen (Darcy) which of course is pretty essential. The Bennett sisters are all sufficiently daft, Donald Sutherland is perfectly indifferent and Rosamund Pike is highly convincing as the beautiful but fragile Jane, every character is well researched and it shows on screen.

However my one true love, is Tom Hollander as Mr Collins who is dangerously close to stealing the show. Hollanders comic timing and shear brilliance at portraying the pretentious yet painfully socially inept Mr. Collins “what excellent boiled potatoes” makes me grin from ear to ear with every viewing. I love the romance, but his presence is a welcome break and a very well thought out balance by Wright, or copied by Wright as he is Austen’s creation. He is the personification and send up of the pompous suffocating etiquette of Victorian middle class England that Lizzy and more than likely Austen were fighting against. Therefore my only complaint is that Tom Hollander is the only piece of Austen’s wit they have taken from the book, as they have managed it so well why not use more? The book is rife with it, yet it’s only present in the Hollanders scenes. But perhaps in 129 minutes a snippet is all you need and our main characters must take center stage.

Austen’s novel, just like Lizzy is much more rounded and deeper than a love story, clearly a lot of time and effort has gone into getting it right and so it should. Great casting, beautiful long range shots of the Peak District and a lovely score, in depth characterisation, Tom Hollander’s David Brent of the late 1800′s and Dame Judy Dench’s final touch make this a truly inspirational story; about true love being rewarded only when you’re able to know your own values that I must say I find most agreeable.

From the Ancient Greek bloodsuckers Empusa and Lamia to modern day half human, soulless, zombie hybrids the idea of monsters living by night and sucking our blood  seems to be woven into the collective subconscious. But the forms these fiends have taken and the ‘rules’ of their existence and possible demise are as varied as the hundreds of cultures they derive from.  From having iron teeth to having the ability to turn into a firefly, any number of supernatural capabilities can be attributed to what we would call vampires. So the next time some smug know-it-all tells you that vampires don’t have a reflection or that they always sleep in a coffin or even that they can’t go out in the day feel free to don your best Stephen Fry manner and politely tell them to go suck themselves.

All that said it is generally accepted that the vampires of popular western fiction are based on the ‘vampirs’ of medieval Serbia and Bulgaria. This is certainly the basis for the two books that did such a huge amount to popularize the genre in the West, John Polidori’s 1819 The Vampyre and the better known Dracula by Bram Stoker from 1897, and it is from these that Hollywood takes its cues.

The first incarnation of the vampire on the big screen was the iconic Nosferatu a symphony of Horror (1922) which is loosely based on Stoker’s novel, unclicensed though it was, hence the change in character names. This did not prevent the German film studio ‘Prada Film’ losing a copyright infringement case against the Stoker estate thus ending the company’s one film history.

The type of vampire portrayed by Max Schrek in the film is representative of the less popular of two types, the other being the charming, often sexual, well mannered, vampire popularized by Bela Ligosi in the later (and fully licensed) Stoker adaptation Dracula (1931).Count Orlok and his vampiric genre are more associated with death and disease and are incapable of siring new vampires. Although they are significantly less used in cinema it is this vampire type that played a huge role in cinematic horror, as we shall see. It is also worth noting that Nosferatu is the first vampire to be killed by sunlight, a ‘rule’ that is now a staple of almost all incarnations but one that seems uncommon in pre cinematic legend, Stoker’s Dracula was weakened by the sun and was also nocturnal but was capable of existing outside.

The suave Ligosi ‘Dracula’ type was the depiction of choice for the 1958 classic Horror of Dracula or just Dracula if you’re a fan of brevity over originality. The film starred Christopher Lee and Peter Cushing as Dracula and Van Helsing respectively, a partnership that would not only define the actors but also the cinema of vampires for more than a decade. Once again the film is loosely based on the Stoker novel, but loosely is the operative word, the film deviates significantly from the story and the ‘rules’. Here once again we see sunlight being deadly to Dracula, his shape-shifting abilities seem to be entirely missing and he no longer uses the blood of others to reduce his apparent age. It seems that this film marks a definite moment in the vampire’s evolution as these rules seem to become staples from this point onwards in cinematic vampire storytelling.  The film did not shirk from the violence and graphic depictions of it as it was considered part of the violent ‘Hammer Horror’ genre and was given an ‘x’ rating upon its release. (It was reclassified in 2007 when the uncut version was released as a 12A.)

After the success of Dracula (1958) the genre grew in popularity resulting in a string of vampire films being made throughout the 60’s. One of the lesser known of these films was Black Sunday or The Mask of the Devil (1960) the story tells of a vampire witch burned at the stake in the 1600’s who vows revenge on the descendants of her killers when she is revived hundreds of years later. The film is regarded as a cult classic and has had a great influence on modern horror films and their directors, including Tim Burton and Sleepy Hollow (1999) and Francis Ford Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992). 1964 saw the release of The Last Man on Earth a film based on the Richard Matheson Novel I Am Legend. The film stands out for two major reasons (the 2007 title not being one of them). First it is one of the few returns to the Nosferatu vampire type wreaking of death and plague. Which leads to the second, the ugliness and decay of the vampires is so extreme, in comparison to the now overriding Lee/Bigosi model, that a new monster is beginning to appear, a modern cinematic example of speciation, and perhaps this monster is the only one capable of fighting the vampire, for box office revenue anyway, the Zombie. As well as the Will Smith incarnation of I Am Legend(2007), The Omega Man (1971) and to a lesser extent 28 Days Later (2002) are also direct products of this diegesis.

The popularity of Dracula exploded towards the end of the 60’s and throughout the 70’s and the genre began to split into smaller sub genre’s as film makers deviated more and more from the old ‘rules’ and the Stoker idea of Dracula. 1967 saw the release of Fearless Vampire Killers (1967) a must for fans of Mel Brooks and Young Frankenstein (1974) so the horror comedy was established and taken to even more disconcerting levels with Blacula in 1972. Vampyros Lesbos (1970) exploited the sexual nature of the story for the ‘erotic horror’ genre something done to a lesser extent by films such as The Vampire Lovers (1970) starring Peter Cushing but not Christopher Lee who turned the role down.  Even Andy Warhol was in on the action creating Blood for Dracula or Andy Warhol’s Dracula in 1974. By 1974 the second age of vampire films was truly over, highlighted by Christopher Lee hanging up his fangs in the less than successful Satanic Rites of Dracula (1973) and Legend of the 7 golden vampires (1974).

As the 70’s ended and the disturbing prospect of the 80’s began to rise the vampire film continued in the direction of insanity, examples of which include The Hunger (1981), an art horror love triangle starring Susan Serandon and David Bowie (as 80’s as it sounds) and Lifeforce (1985), which includes Patick Stewart in it’s credits. It has been described by one IMDB user as ‘the greatest naked space vampire zombies from Halley’s Comet running amok in London end-of-the-world movie ever made’, and what greater praise is there?

After a decade of vampiric cock snot being broadcast across the silver screen there began to be a glimmer of hope, a pin prick of light representing originality appearing on the horizon. Vampire Hunter D (1985) was released but this was a time before popularized anime semi sub culture and so little attention was paid to it. However the remake released in 2000 seems to have garnered more attention and even higher praise. It tells the story of a half human half vampire bounty hunter in the year 12090 (that’s not a typo) who is in a race against time to recover a girl from a powerful vampire. For the rest of us more at home with popular culture set in a century that doesn’t represent a phone number, the mid 80’s saw the release of The Lost Boys (1987). An action/comedy/horror/ coming of age film about two boys moving to California and fighting a gang of teenage vampires starring Kiefer Sutherland, Jason Patric and Corey Feldman. Beyond its cult status The Lost Boys represents a reincarnation of imagination in the genre, playing with the ideas of immortality and eternal youth and using the lore of the vampire for good effect not just tagging on ‘with vampires’ to the end of a run of the mill plot just to get a film commissioned. Another film that was part of the 80’s vampire revival was Near Dark (1987), a western/vampire/road movie intentionally and brilliantly avoiding the conventions that had been laid down and were responsible for destroying the vampire movie genre for the previous decade. The film tells the story of a young man who joins a small group of vampires, inhabiting the edges of normal society as a motorcycle gang. Avoiding the mythical rules/lore pitfalls of the genre the film concentrates on the ideas of acceptance and belonging to a sub group of people outside of normal society. As with The Lost Boys the film manages to use the preconceptions of the genre to its advantage but not be led by them down all too familiar paths, the gun fight in the motel with bullet holes creating deadly beams of light is a perfect example of this. The film had been green lit for a remake but has been postponed because of its similarity to a certain teen vampire film series currently in cinemas.

It seems to be a trait of modern cinema that every time a genre has a period of popularity a parody must be on the horizon but few parodies are as double edged as Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1992). With the reinvention of Vampire films in the mid to late 80s and the rise of feminism and ‘girl power’ about to erupt in the nineties Buffy stands astride them both waving one past and ushering the other forward. But it is not Buffy’s role in cinema that she is remembered for, in fact the 1992 film is all but a footnote on the high heels of the huge TV series that was to follow in 1997, which would once again reinvent the genre for a whole new generation. It is really this teenage, kick ass, vampire killing wave that we are just coming off of today. But Buffy the film seems somewhat ahead of its time, before the TV series the vampire genre was still undergoing a classical adult rebirth. Bram Stoker’s Dracula (1992) was released in the same year as Buffy and as it suggests Coppola’s version picks up right where Werner Herzog left off. What’s more, this is perhaps the closest rendition to the original story to date. An all star cast including Anthony Hopkins (Van Helsing) and Gary Oldman (Dracula) are at least a match for the classic Lee/Cushing combination. Before the revolution came there was still one last triumph for the classic vampire film, Interview with a Vampire:The Vampire Chronicles (1994) based on the Anne Rice novel. This film can really be seen as the hinge on which the new breed of vampire film opened, it contains such brilliant aspects of both periods. Post modern in the sense that it’s set in modern day city, the vampire with a soul is present in Louis (Pitt) and this relationship of old style versus new is played out in his relationship with LeStat (Cruise) who portrays the classic evil vampire, sexual and charismatic a latter day image of Ligosi. The film is steeped in the lore and mythology of the vampire but is set against the background of an interview for a modern newspaper. Louis recounts the story of his life (or death depending on your view) and this chronological look at the history of the vampire seems a fitting end for what was about to happen to the whole genre.  In 1995 The Addiction was released, it was part of the new form of vampire film, a psychoanalytical look at why vampires are the way they are ostensibly it was an attempt to break down the whole genre, its appeal, its meaning and what it said about the human race and it’s 200 year obsession with this one monster. Again it seems fitting that this film was released when it was because in the next three years everything was about to change. From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) ushered in the Tarantino generation with it’s barefaced, unashamed violence and comic book characterization.  The year after Buffy the Vampire Slayer was released on TV (I have intentionally avoided muddying the waters by talking about TV as well but this series stands out as such a landmark in my generation’s vampire landscape I feel it cannot be avoided) and 1998 saw Blade explode onto cinema screens. In less than 5 years the genre had again gone through an enormous  transformation, from the resurrection in the mid 80’s, the return to the classical in the early 90’s and now to balls to the wall, full blown, head exploding, blood splattering action as the vampire film headed into the 21^st century. But as with everything these waves cannot last forever and the 00’s brought few vampire films and very few good ones. Underworld (2002), Queen of the Damned (2002) and Van Helsing (2004) are just some of the awful examples of how not to make vampire films. But originality once more glistens in the dark and some excellent films have been made abroad where the obsession of dollar return seems to weigh less heavily on the minds of film makers. Night Watch (2004), Park Chan Wook’s Thirst (2009)and Let the Right One in (2008)  not only make up for the short comings of Hollywood but pay for them tenfold, truly original re-imaginings of the same classic ideas. As we enter a new decade, we stand halfway through a vampire saga set to be one of the biggest of all time. Regardless of whether Twilight (2008)is regarded in the future as a Dracula or The Queen of the Damned it will remain a sizeable landmark on the map of this genre and the vampire films that surround it, such as Daybreakers (2010) will make up the next chapter of the story of this immortal creature.

Daybreakers is due for general release on 6^th January 2010