thistimeitwillbedifferent

I came across this short earlier whilst browsing a part of Roger Ebert's blog. It reminded me of the interviews that used to conclude episodes of Band Of Brothers, rounding them off with a powerful punch of memory and reality. The subject is something that has been talked about often and, as ever when war and death are humanised, it caries a powerful message.



Probably because they are both short films that deal with death in some way or another, watching it got me thinking about This Way Up, the British short film that probably should of won an Oscar earlier in the year. If you haven't seen it then it really is a must watch. I'm not sure about its distribution rights (although, unsurprisingly, you can find it around the Internet) so rather than embed it, here is the link to the BBC's Film Network where it is available to watch legally.

Short films rarely get attention, whether from viewers, critics, bloggers or Joe public and I would be the first to admit that I don't exactly actively seek them out. What examples like the aforementioned two show however, is that 3 minutes of film can have a hauntingly powerful effect, more so, it could be argued, than some of their longer counterparts. Beautiful visuals, a good script (if there is one), nice turns from any actors and a genuine and persistent care and passion for what you are doing are all present in the above. Try pointing them out to me in Twilight.

'whilst its intentions may be noble and its choice of delivery method artistically stimulating, in the end the film falters on several levels'






wmd. is an inventive and unique take on the 'found footage' sub-genre made popular by films like The Blair Witch Project and, more recently, Cloverfield. Based around the justification for going to war with Iraq, wmd. presents the 'found' surveillance footage of and by an MI6 desk officer (Simon Lenagan) who began investigating the evidence for Weapons of Mass Destruction just prior to the invasion taking place in 2002.

Start researching into wmd. and you're likely to come across as many obstacles as Alex Morgan (Lenagan) does during the plot of the film. Made on a shoe-string budget to basically advertise the talents of Director David Holroyd, wmd. has pretty much been released backwards, starting with an online digital release and graduating to (very) limited cinema screens in mid-November, a deliberate strategy which Holroyd discussed with Screen Jabber recently. The element of mystique and subversion that this creates is entirely in-keeping with what the film wants to say about the Iraq war and the reasons behind it and it will be interesting to see if Holroyd's film makes the leap up to minor-phenomenon once more people get to see it (perhaps once it premieres on TV, surely an inevitable evolution).

The film uses a fictional character in Alex Morgan, a desk officer at MI6, to tell what Holroyd and many others would claim is a true tale: that the Iraq war was based on incomplete, manipulated and even faked evidence in order to further the political and economic agenda of the United States. As such, the film is a powerful document of what increasingly (especially with the inquiry pending) looks like being the correct version of events and obvious supporters of the theory have been quick to champion the film.

Whilst its intentions may be noble and its choice of delivery method artistically stimulating, in the end the film falters on several levels. Whilst Holroyd has largely mastered the art of directing 'found' footage, inserting stop-motion style CCTV and not quite rightly positioned surveillance cameras, the angles we are treated too are sometimes a little bit too convenient. Bearable though this is, Holroyd's script and the delivery of it sometimes approaches disastrous.

When producing something that is meant to be 'real' it is vital to keep the audience in that reality and too often poor execution and scripting taken directly out of Newsnight serves to kill any sort of atmosphere. One instance towards the end of the film really does look, feel and sound like a television interview, Lenagan asking questions in a way you'd normally expect Paxman to on a weeknight. Similarly, the sections when Morgan is with his wife (Jo-Anne Knowles) also do the film no favours and feel completely forced. Putting aside some stand-out moments this basically means the film brings together over an hour of stoic interviews, lacking tension or emotion which make it, even at only an hour and twenty odd minutes, a difficult watch which feels overlong.

Despite, rather than because of what goes before, Holroyd does manage to cultivate an extremely tense final 10 minutes even though you're aware from the opening moments what is going to happen. Parts of it remain far too convenient for his carefully scripted world where super spies have got surveillance in all the right places but you can't argue that it doesn't work as a suitably open yet rounded end. As a whole the film is a brave effort and fulfils its purpose in promoting Holroyd and documenting and supporting the anti-war agenda, but really its ideas are too often undermined by some poor delivery and sloppy scripting to call it a success.

A few days ago, The Mad Hatter posted an interesting article about watching films online, particularly focusing on a conversation he had had with someone who had chosen to watch Paranormal Activity illegally. I agreed with all of his points. I don't agree with downloading films illegally although I suspect it is not as big a problem as the studios want us to believe. Equally, his point was well made that, if anything, downloading a small independent film (although; is Paranormal Activity that anymore?) is going to really hurt the film maker rather more than say, downloading Transformers 2.

Based on those arguments its probably best why I explain the next post on this blog will be an 'online' review of a small independent film. Lovefilm, the UK's leading DVD rental company, have recently started allowing users on certain rental packages to watch select films online, at no extra cost but included in the monthly payment structure most people have become accustomed to arranging for DVD rentals. This, in my opinion, is a 'good thing'.

Both of the films I have watched through the service so far are un-cinematic, fairly niche movies (wmd. and Tyson) that I certainly wouldn't of gone to the cinema to see and may or may not have tracked down the DVD. In wmd.'s case, I'm not even sure it has a DVD. What the Lovefilm service has allowed is for two small films to get some extra exposure whilst (I assume) making the filmmakers a small amount of money and protecting the watching public from the illegalities of downloads and the websites you have to use to get to them.

I can't say seeing Tyson in the cinema would of been a better experience than watching it through headphones, full-screen, on my laptop. wmd. is tense towards the end but I wouldn't class it as cinematic and the performances probably lend themselves more to the small screen than the large. In all I've seen two films I wouldn't normally have seen, two directors have got a bit more exposure and everybody has gone home happy.

The appearance of wmd. online and on Lovefilm prior to its cinematic release doesn't seem to be an isolated case either. On the 25th September this year, the very same company hosted the world's first online premiere, streamed in parellel with its real-world West-End one. Again, the film in question (Vinyan) was a relatively small, low-budget offering and the move by the filmmakers seems to have similar intentions to wmd.'s. Providing legal access to online films in this way looks likely to escalate over the coming months and years and might provide a more socially engaging and convenient method for movie-goers to connect with films on a similar level as music lovers do with music through Spotify.

Any objections? Is this the legal future of online movie watching?

Having been recently awash with general negative feelings towards UK journalists and their, quite frankly, somewhat pathetic attempts at various degrees of copy, I felt the need to purge my soul with something intelligent, fun, witty and insightful.

Which is exactly what Simon Mayo and Mark Kermode provide every Friday in their film reviews programme on BBC Radio 5 Live. I'm yet to listen (or watch, see below) to an episode that hasn't entertained me and whilst I don't always agree with Kermode, he is without doubt one of the most knowledgeable scholars of film I have ever had the pleasure of listening to. Likewise, Simon Mayo is a fantastic jounrnalist and the station will miss him greatly when he transfers to BBC Radio 2 in January (he will, thankfully retain an extended film review spot for two hours on Fridays with Kermode). He is the perfect foil to Kermode and together they make one of those rare and fantastic on-screen and in-ear couples.

Below is a video that encapsulates a 'Kermode rant', the subject of which is Pirates of The Caribbean 3 and particularly Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley who share an on screen presence not dislike 'watching two chairs mating'. Kermode's video blog has regular posts and can be enjoyed here. I urge you to give it a try.

Perusing the Internet looking for some information about why the Public Enemies DVD seems to be available to buy, but not rent from my regular supplier (I smelt a conspiracy), I happened across this so-so and rather short review from The Mirror's David Edwards. Granted, I'm sure Mr Edwards was limited to the amount of copy he was allowed to produce but really the five-paragraph article surely only qualifies as a synopsis containing some opinion-based phrases the writer managed to sneak past his editor.

British journalism, usually hailed as a bastion of hard work, intelligence, originality and, occasionally, contributory to saving the nation, has taken a bit of a battering in recent months. First we had the Jan Moir piece, rightly pilloried from all corners for its homophobic undertones, masquerading as inflammatory 'comment'. Quickly following that, The Times' flagship 'intelligent man', AA Gill, decided it would be a good idea to shoot a baboon because he was wearing a hat that 'makes you ache to kill stuff', a flippant decision, written about in his normally pompous tone which led to another incidence of what the media are quickly starting to call 'trial by twitter'.

The above two incidents of writers mistaking their copy for credible and un-bigoted pieces when they are absolutely the opposite are bad (really bad), and you would be forgiven for asking where this is going in relation to David Edwards' crime, which surely isn't in the same journalistic, nor criminal, league. You'd be right to and David Edwards misdemeanours don't even come close to approaching Moir's and Gills'. However, after reading his piece on Public Enemies and having had this similarly ridiculous review from The Observer (and normally excellent Phillip French) tweeted to me last week, I was suspicious. Were Britain's journalists falling down around my ears? Had editorial standards sunk to an all-time low that 5 paragraph descriptions of films could pass off as a review? Where were all the good film reviews hiding?


I ploughed on, un-deterred and clicked through to all David Edwards' posts, glancing across at his biography. It described him as 'droll, acerbic and never afraid to ruffle a few feathers'. That's fair enough. My bio describes my degree certificate as being above my toilet when it's actually sitting next to me, awaiting framing, in the study. Suspicion levels creeping upwards I read his latest review which was of a similar length to the one that piqued my interest in the first place. Within the first paragraph I counted three much-used Christmas cliches. In the second he appears to suggest that the effects on show in the Polar Express and Beowulf amount to being 'near-perfect' and in the third he goes to that most used word of the 21st century critic, electing to describe the film as 'dark'. At this point I noticed this review actually had more to it, hidden beneath a 'click for full article' button. I didn't bother.

Instead I went back to his bio. Continuing down it goes on to say that David thinks, 'There Will Be Blood is the greatest flick he's seen since taking the job in 2004'. Redemption! Can it be that this film critic who turns in copy the length of my address and mistakes blank-faced milk bottles for realistic people, actually is a super-critic in disguise? Had I misguidedly judged his heavily edited pieces to actually represent the gamut of his films opinions? Sadly not. The bio continues thus, 'with the little-seen Appaloosa close behind'. Oh dear.

At this point I think it is worth pointing out that my heart did not sink to the depths of writing this due to David Edwards liking Appaloosa, despite the fact that I distinctly did not like it and came pretty damn close to giving it my first one star review for a while. If he likes it that is entirely his opinion which, after all, is the founding philosophy of reviewing something. No, what did motivate this is the fact that he thinks it is the second best film to have been produced since 2004 bah TWBB. Did he forget No Country For Old Men? Fail to see Brokeback Mountain or The Departed? Not hear about a little trio called Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button or Frost/Nixon? And that's just naming some of the Oscar nominated films we've had since then. When asked to name the second best film since 2004, did he draw Appaloosa out of a hat?

Maybe it is jealousy. I, the logic goes, like most sensibly minded people, can see that all (or even if you really like Appaloosa, any one) of the above films are technically and artistically better than Appaloosa, therefore, why am I not in David Edward's job? However, largely, it is indignation that prompted my annoyance. However much we would like to think otherwise, writers in newspapers, the Internet and magazines influence what we and the general public think on a weekly, if not daily, basis. Sadly, Mr Edwards' biography, will potentially drive the hundreds of people who see it to miss the above Oscar nominees and instead watch the 'little-seen' (for a reason) Appaloosa. Unlike the Gill and Moir articles, David Edwards' ineptness doesn't reach the offensive but it is still, like the deadly-duo's pieces, a disturbing indictment of what passes for a piece of informed and intelligent journalism in some areas of the Great British press.

'the main production pair expand Good well, making it a believable film in its own right rather than just a straight and direct stage-to-screen adaptation'






Converting a play to the screen is extremely difficult. Whether it is Shakespeare, Pinter or, in this case, C.P. Taylor, the pressure is on the adapting screenwriter and film's director to find a new angle to bring to life a playwright's vision, often meaning they are forced to experiment with timescale and structure. This is absolutely the case in Good, however, unlike a huge amount of adaptations Vicente Amorin and John Wrathall do an impressively neat job.

The reason this kind of transformation is needed when plays are bought to the screen is due to the fixed structure most dramatic works conform to. A startling majority still follow three acts, with three scene(ry) and costume changes, often moving through three different times and locations. A film demands much more than this, particularly on the location side of things and so, Amorin and Wrathall move the structure of Good around and add in locations that are necessary to convert the play. I haven't seen Good in the theatre but if I was a betting man I would probably go for it having the following three Acts; one in John Halder's (Viggo Mortensen) first house, one in Maurice's (Jason Isaacs) apartment and a final one in Halder's second house. The main production pair expand this well to take in a concentration camp, a narrow but suitably manic street during what I believe to be Kristallnacht and other locations for the main characters to converse in. It works wonderfully and makes Good a believable film in its own right rather than just a straight and direct stage-to-screen adaptation.

All that remains then is for the story to live up to the production values which it does and doesn't in equal measure. The 'Good' of the title is assumedly encapsulated by Halder who faces numerous tests of his character from the Nazi repatriation of his book to the advances of a female student (Jodie Whittaker). Halder's reactions to these events aren't necessarily 'good' but like all well-rounded characters we can see that his soul is willing even if his flesh and brain don't always follow it.

Where the film stops short of being a character study is at the point of entry of Maurice, a Jewish psychiatrist and long-term friend of Halder. Maurice acts as a sort of skewed moral compass for Halder, attempting to advise him on key matters in his own self-interested way. I recently heard an interview with Jason Isaacs talking about how he believed he had the best, but not main, part in the film, as the conflicted and fearful but outwardly confident companion to Halder. However, he really doesn't and this is where the problems with Good start.

The real key to the film; in both character's development, narrative and conclusion, is the relationship between Halder and Maurice and their reactions to the hand that fate deals them. By the end of it however, I wasn't convinced that the two were really friends, perhaps more casual acquaintances who see each other at surgery and not very often after that. There wasn't enough development of their friendship and they simply did not share enough meaningful screen time (I think I can remember Maurice in Halder's house once, if I'm mistaken, that figure is zero).

In Maurice's place, Halder instead has the advances and companionship of student Anne to contend with, her influences again being key to the story. This is another relationship fraught with problems when it comes to life on the screen but this time all of Jodie Whittaker's making. Her portrayal of Anne frequently veers from strong and forwards liberal to hardly noticed extra and her delivery of some lines feels extremely forced and trite. Frequently her presence takes you completely out of the scene, making it difficult to witness her impact on Halder, who despite the above two characters, is still the subject of the film.

Despite these problems and a clumsy side plot which delves into the real-life implications of the theories Halder covers in his novel, Good is an extremely well-rounded adaptation of its source. The only other thing to note is that C.P. Taylor's choice of title for his play makes it an extremely difficult film to review because it is almost impossible not to report the fact that Good is, well... good. Henceforth, to protect journalists and bloggers from using clumsy syntax, all playwrights and screenwriters should be discouraged from using adjectives as titles. Perhaps 'Decent' will have to suffice.

'unlike so many documentaries and documentary makers, Toback is not afraid to present his subject to you, the audience, and let you make your own judgements'






Just over halfway through Tyson there is a piece of archive footage from a weigh-in at one of his fights. It is his first one after having been released from jail for the rape of Desiree Washington. There is the usual posturing and posing as his entourage surround him and the venues' staff members. From the back, off camera, there is a commotion. Someone yells, 'Put him in a straight-jacket!'. What happens next sums up Mike Tyson. Turning towards where his heckler assumedly is, Tyson launches a volley of extreme verbal abuse, rolling off expletives like right hook, left hook combinations. At first his entourage look on approvingly. But as Mike continues his voice starts to become hoarse, his closest advisor begins to suggest that maybe he should stop, he is visibly staggering, shaken by a sucker punch he wasn't anticipating. By the end of his tirade he is obviously close to tears.

With Mike Tyson there is always a palpable tension. It is one of those little coincidences that he is currently here in the UK, engaging in 'Dinner' tours where he has promised question and answers sessions from the audience. In the first interview of the tour, with Sky News' Dermot Murnaghan, Tyson responded to a question about his perceived new mellowness by saying, 'I guess I did change because I’m not assailing you, but you’re irritating me right now.' The tension that follows Tyson is not just the outer one he shows, the one where he might snap at any moment and flick Murnaghan out of the room like an inconvenient fly, it is an inner tension within Mike himself, a tension between multiple lives and personalities.

Tyson admits this during the film. In a brave move, director James Toback allows Tyson to be his own narrator and much more. Excluding the archive footage, his is the only voice we hear as he gives his own opinions on his life. As such some of these are highly coloured, perhaps sometimes even fictional, occasionally just plain wrong. In this capacity he is not just his own narrator, sometimes he is his own judge, jury and executioner as well as his own teacher, mentally awarding himself a star for merit or achievement. I believed him in all sincerity however, when he described his difficulty in adapting from life in inner-city New York to moving in with mentor and trainer Cus D'Amato in his suburban, fourteen bedroom, family home. This was surely the start of the Tyson Tension.

Tyson (the film) offers no answers whatsoever to the conundrum of Mike Tyson. It simply presents him as is. He is an absolutely awe-inspiring sportsman yes but he's also a convicted criminal and rapist. He's soft and articulately spoken with a genuine tenderness for some subjects but he is also generally un-remorseful for some of his worst crimes and can turn his intellect inside out to spout off heinous insults against those in his live he has fallen out with.

Such an approach lays Toback open to criticism. How can he let such a person have free reign over the camera and microphone? How can he not present a documentary which passes judgement over Tyson? Has he not missed a golden opportunity? Those that level this sort of criticism are missing the point. Tyson does all of the above and more because, unlike so many documentaries and documentary makers, Toback is not afraid to present his subject to you, the audience, and let you make your own judgements, uncoloured by his. Yes it helps that Tyson is so fluent and controversial but that is surely even more kudos to Toback for recognising him as a worthy subject.

The film captures the Tyson Tension on celluloid, in his own apartment, laid bare. And for that reason alone it is most certainly, a success.

'Bruno's rebellion on screen is much more understandable as are certain actions he chooses to take in the coldly modern art-deco house Director Mark Herman imprisons the family in'






Based on John Boyne's book of the same name, The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas follows Bruno (Asa Butterfield) as he moves from his Berlin townhouse to the countryside for his Father's (David Thlewis) new army posting during the Second World War. Focusing on Bruno we also see the effect the move will have on his Sister (Amber Beattie) and Mother (Vera Farmiga) as well as Bruno's new found friend (Jack Scanlon).

When I sat down to write my thoughts on John Boyne's book I found it a remarkably difficult novel to like. It wasn't necessarily the content or the particularly hard to swallow conclusion, it was more the tone and style of it. The book presented itself absolutely from young Bruno's point of view which was sweet and ironic in equal measure, Bruno's constant mispronunciations giving us a unique world view that only an 11 year-old could have (The Fuhrer for example became 'The Fury'). But then the book expected you, and more to the point, the youngsters it was aimed at, to swallow a remarkably harsh message about innocence and family, lost and destroyed. It didn't sit right and smacked of dual standards - an adult fable presented as a child's story, to children.

I'm pleased to report that the film manages the books themes much better. The sense of innocence lost and of the eventual destruction of a family are played out realistically whilst still retaining the innocent view of Bruno and, to a greater degree than the book, his sister Gretel. Bruno's rebellion on screen is much more understandable as are certain actions he chooses to take in the coldly modern art-deco house Director Mark Herman imprisons the family in.

There are still problems however. I'm still not 100% sure who the story is aimed at. The childlike elements of the tale and the isolation and displacement Bruno feels will appeal to younger audiences but the more subtle themes about the influence of Nazism and the aforementioned innocence lost are still placed more towards a later-teenage market. Crucially, the books conclusion is retained and it doesn't lose any of its resonance or shock. It is grim and disturbing and an extremely brave move from the filmmakers to stick with it.

Whilst it is difficult to criticise child actors, Jack Scanlon as Bruno's friend Shmuel just doesn't bear up to Asa Butterfield and as a result the scenes between the two of them occasionally feel forced and trite. Elswhere, Herman makes some great decisions and sticks remarkably closely to the text but I couldn't help feeling that he missed a trick in failing to extend the already under-developed characters of Pavel (who is possibly under-developed on purpose) and, even more so the maid Maria (Cara Horgen). Maria especially is the kind of 'sees all' servant who has a special affinity with Bruno that we only ever catch glimpses of. Herman allows these glimpses to permeate but then, despite her presence at the conclusion, completely denies us her reactions, condemning her to being just another silent female film character.

Superior to the book then, Herman's film is brave and occasionally gripping, making significant and calculated decisions along the way, leading us to a devastating conclusion and fitting portrayal of a number of childhoods lost.

'parts of the script are just too clever to have been made up on the spot; 'What happens in Washington, stays in Washington', says naive aide Toby to his love interest, 'well... I live in Washington so that doesn't work for me', she replies'






In The Loop follows hapless politician Simon Foster (Tom Hollander) through a series of political miss-haps across Britain and American through, roughly, a week or so. Pursued every step of the way by vicious communications director Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) and simultaneously hampered and aided by his... erm... aides, Judy Molloy (Gina McKee) and Toby Wright (Chris Addison), Foster must attempt to stave off his political suicide by fighting neither for, nor against, a war he doesn't understand.

In The Loop is a feature-length political satire which spawned from the British series The Thick Of It. Director/Writer Armando Ianucci's basic premise is that things that happen in politics are funny enough without dressing them up with clever setups or slapstick humour. And so we have all of the 'funny' things you see on a day to day basis from your politicians; aides running around to secure last minute support for a vote, politicians denying something they said only a moment ago, the dichotomy between setting foreign policy and carrying out constituent surgeries, etc, etc.

Iannucci excels in bringing these things to the screen in articulate and well staged ways and the scripting, as with The Thick Of It, remains excellent. Much of that series was improvised and I imagine the same thing is true of In The Loop although some things just seem too clever to have been made up on the spot; 'What happens in Washington, stays in Washington', says naive aide Toby to his love interest (the really quite brilliant Anna Chlumsky) 'well... I live in Washington so that doesn't work for me', she replies.

You can't have a satire without some rasping comedy villain/anti-hero to show us how stupid everyone else is, a role excellently brought to live here by Peter Capaldi's Malcolm Tucker. Apparently based on Tony Blair's ex-Director of Communications (read: Director of Spin) Alistair Campbell, he steals every scene with his expletive laden put downs that are eminently quotable; 'Climbing the mountain of conflict?' he sneers at a Foster quote at one point, before delivering his evaluation; 'you sound like a Nazi Julie Andrews.' There are more, many more, but we could be here all day if I stop to pick out the best ones.

The negatives? Well, like in the recent Dorian Gray with it's own walking quote machine Lord Henry, Malcolm does have the tendency to appear too often and only speak in witty epigrams when he does. Similarly, the American political contingent just aren't either as funny or as inept as their British counterparts. In the film's defence, The Thick Of It has had a number of series' to bed its characters in whilst the newly introduced characters don't get that luxury. Having said that, I haven't watched too much of the TV series and to me the Americans still seemed rather stereotypical comedy-politicians rather than the well rounded Brits who are not just believable characters but also believable 'people'.

In all though, it's a brilliant tale, made even more so by the fact that Iannucci knows that to be a truly moral satire, there must be some emotional real-world weight behind what it says and does, a fact which the conclusion reflects all too accurately. And, that's your lot, review over, or, as Malcolm Tucker would say, 'fuckety bye-bye!'

'Cole and Hitch are employed by the townsfolk of Appaloosa to protect them against Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons, sporting one of the best 'this-guy's-an-evil-genius-in-a-western' names I've ever heard)'






Appaloosa is Ed Harris' second effort at direction (his first being Pollack, nine years ago) and, as second efforts go, definitely qualifies as a backwards step. Once again choosing to direct himself, Harris stars as Virgil Cole, one half of a freelance law-keeping duo which is completed by Viggo Mortensen's Everett Hitch. Together they are employed by the townsfolk of Appaloosa to protect them against Randall Bragg (Jeremy Irons, sporting one of the best 'this-guy's-an-evil-genius-in-a-western names' I've ever heard).

The problem with Appaloosa is that it is a film with more good ideas than it has time or care to deliver and pick through properly. You can almost see Harris sketching out shots and plot lines and thinking they're all so good that he doesn't want to waste any. The relationship between Hitch and Cole for example, whilst obviously loyal and complex is given a lot of twee buddy moments that just aren't needed (it is hinted at that Cole might be illiterate, often having to ask Hitch to finish his lines for him).

The end result of this is that the story suffers markedly. Quick jumps between situations Harris has planned occur on a regular basis, completely destroying the myth of a chronological story. In one section, Cole and Hitch partake in a huge gunfight and are injured as a result. The scene ends in a fade-out with Renee Zellwegger's character (yes, she's in it to, I'll get to her) running over to the two gunmen. The next scene fades in. The two are both up and well (Cole has a cast on his leg) and in a completely different location where several things have apparently changed since last we saw them.

The problems with Harris' mastery of story-telling (or lack there of) roundly prevent Appaloosa from being a 'good film' but it is stopped from being an even average one by some really poor performances. Mortensen is probably the only one of the leading lights to emerge with anything like some solid acting he'd be proud to see on his CV. Harris is one-note and does his own brand of open-your-mouth-to-convey-depth look on too many occasions. Irons' and fellow Englishman Timothy Spall have various accents depending which bit of the film you're watching and both do nothing other than inhabit stereotypical roles. Zellwegger is also particularly poor despite some admitted promise early on (as a fellow blogger commented, she is 'at her squintiest').

All in all it's a poor film and if Harris is to dip his toe in direction again he would be best to a) give the acting duties to someone else or b) listen to his Producer more.