“Intolerable Cruelty” is another clever film from the Coen brothers (“Raising Arizona”, “Barton Fink”). It stars George Clooney (“Batman & Robin”, “Tomorrowland”) and Catherine Zeta-Jones (“The Mask Of Zorro”, “Entrapment”) as the glamorous leads and with its witty script, proves to be a great addition to the filmography of the Coen brothers.

Marylin is a beautiful gold digger (Zeta-Jones) and has just managed to get video evidence of her cheating husband when she crosses paths with an exceptionally good divorce lawyer called Miles (Clooney). Soon the scheming Marylin finds the daring Miles becoming increasingly attracted to her. Miles becomes love-struck but is Marylin just toying with him?

Catherine Zeta-Jones seems almost perfectly cast as the wicked yet charming Marylin, who may potentially learn a lesson or two as the film progresses. While I generally dislike Clooney’s performances, he is cast in a role that perfectly suits him as a smug lawyer. The two have very good romantic chemistry. The best character in the film is Miles’ boss (Tom Alrdedge “What About Bob?”), who is the character that makes it clear that this is a Coen brothers’ film. Billy Bob Thornton (“Bad Santa”), Geoffrey Rush (“The King’s Speech”) and Cedric the Entertainer (“Madagascar”) aren’t very good. Watch out for an incredibly brief appearance by Bruce Campbell (“Evil Dead”).

“Intolerable Cruelty” contains some smart lines that’ll make you chuckle; it features some really enjoyable performances from the lead actors. This film also features the funniest courtroom scenes I remember seeing since watching “Liar Liar”. Some that have seen the Coen brothers’ other films such as “Big Lebowski” and “Raising Arizona” might find this picture a little unambitious but I think you should give it a chance because this is an interesting and likeable romantic comedy and I think most people will enjoy it.

Christopher Nolan (“Batman Begins”, “The Prestige”) directs “Insomnia”, a remake of a 1997 Norwegian film of the same name. I have not seen the original movie but I can tell you that “Insomnia” is a very chilling thriller. Parts of it are very disturbing and the main performances are very effective. It’s so much better than “Se7en” and “The Bone Collector” so it deserves more credit.

Will Dormer (Al Pacino “Scarface”, “Dick Tracy”) is a respected cop from L.A., who is sent to a small town in Alaska to investigate a murder. Things get increasingly complicated when the suspect (Robin Williams “Jumanji”, “Aladdin”) witnesses Dormer shoot his own partner. Dormer is also struggling to cope with sleep depravation due to the 24hour light cycle.

Al Pacino does a great job as Will Dormer. Robin Williams is also great as Walter Finch. The interactions between the two are fascinating as the lines between good and evil become blurred. The conversation they have about the effects of the light cycle is terrific. Hilary Swank (“The Next Karate Kid”, “Boys Don’t Cry”) is a little underwhelming as Ellie Burr, a young Alaskan police officer that idolises Dormer. The other characters are a little disappointing as well.

“Insomnia” is not one of the absolute best films from Christopher Nolan but I really enjoyed it and I think that is sadly quite overlooked. The score is harrowing, the plot has some intriguing twists and turns, the stuff about the mental effects of the light cycle is excellent and the performances from Pacino and Williams are very enjoyable. This is an intelligent cop thriller that knows that it does not have to show us every gory detail to be disturbing. Films such as “Se7en”, “Manhunter”, “The Bone Collector”, “Hannibal” and “Saw” like to show us all the blood and guts but “Insomnia” has an intelligent script so it does not need all the graphic imagery.

“Inside Man” is a skilfully made crime film that is somewhat spoiled by the unnecessary characters, subplots and scenes it throws our way. It is directed by the popular Spike Lee (“Malcolm X”, “Do The Right Thing”) but here he doesn’t seem to realise when he’s hit the jackpot.

“Inside Man” focuses on an incredibly clever bank heist. It’s clever because it starts out making you believe this a simple robbery but escalates into a hostage situation and then it takes truly inspiring turns before tossing away the goods at the very end. You have the lead robber is played by Clive Owen (“The Bourne Identity”) and the negotiator is played by Denzel Washington (“Training Day”, “American Gangster”), you don’t need anyone else; others only clutter the place.

Denzel Washington is good here as he creates the sense of being a real negotiator as he’s flawed and not always true to his morals but ultimately a good guy. Clive Owen is sort-of the same but as the movie progresses, you’ll see the differences. Their interactions are brief but executed with precision. Willem Dafoe (“Spider-Man”), Jodie Foster (“Panic Room”) and Christopher Plummer (“Dragnet”) only seek to distract you from the thrills. They are needless and never amount to anything interesting, they take you out of the tension and bore you.

“Inside Man” features some very exciting moments and the heist itself is tense and extremely smart but it’s a shame the film feels the need to be filled with footnotes, side stories and pretty much everything else to remove you from the situation. Remember how focused “Die Hard” was, well the tension is the same but the focus is missing. Focusing on the tension is what is important and as important as character development and dialog is, dialog and character development can emerge from thrilling and tense scenarios but “Inside Man” doesn’t seem to understand this.

“Infra-Man” is a like a 70s “Godzilla” movie with better special effects, sillier-looking monsters, less talking and more action because I always hated the fact that in most giant monster movies (e.g. “Godzilla” and the Japanese “King Kong” films) you always had to wait until the last ten minutes of the film in order to see the fighting.

In “Infra-Man”, a group of ridiculous monsters led by Princess Dragon Mom are about to take over the world so a scientist creates Infra-Man, who does several consecutive somersaults every time he appears, can detach his hand, has rocket boots that defy the laws of physics and despite being a supposedly ‘secret’ government project is instantly recognised by name during his debut. Most of the film consists of people in shiny silver suits being attacked and Infra-Man coming to save the day.

When it comes to these movies you really can’t judge the acting in normal ways; the action sequences are much easier to discuss. I think they are really good here as they’re much more kung-fu driven and due to that look a lot more fluent than the usual slow manoeuvrability found in something like “Godzilla” or “Mothra”.

“Infra-Man” is a lot better than it perhaps should be as after all it is still pretty much the same cheesiness always found in this type of film but here it looks a lot better than it normally does. “Infra-Man” has one of the funniest moments I’ve ever seen in a movie and that is the decapitation sequence near the end, if it doesn’t have you in stitches then maybe you should consider visiting a doctor. Forget the bigger names in the monster movie industry, Infra-Man is the one to remember and he needs a sequel. I’m hoping for something along the lines of “Infra-Man 2: Invasion Of Planet X”.

“The Departed” was a great crime thriller from Martin Scorsese but a lot of people do not know that it was actually a remake of a 2002 Hong Kong movie titled “Infernal Affairs”. The films are very similar but also very different and while I dislike seeming ignorant, I much prefer the American version.

In this movie, we follow undercover cop Chen Wing Yan (Tony Leung “Hero”), who has successfully infiltrated a Triad gang and must spend his days pretending to be someone he is not. We also follow Lau Kin Ming (Andy Lau “House Of Flying Daggers”), a Hong Kong police officer that is secretly working for the Triads. The two men try to expose each other as the situation becomes increasingly dangerous.

I felt a lot more invested in the characters in “The Departed” than the ones in “Infernal Affairs” and I think a lot of that has to do with the length of the movie. “The Departed” is almost an hour longer than “Infernal Affairs” so we have more time to learn about the characters and understand what makes them tick. The characters in “Infernal Affairs” are not bad by any means but the performances here seem suppressed in comparison to the raw emotion featured in “The Departed”.

“Infernal Affairs” is clearly a slick Hong Kong crime thriller but it just never quite grabbed my attention. The film is very skilfully made but everything seems a little too perfect and it is almost bland at times. One thing the original does better than its American remake is the ending. If you loved “The Departed”, I would recommend checking this film out just to compare the two styles and see which one you like more. However, on its own, I do not feel that I can give it a recommendation.

“Raiders of the Lost Ark” was a brilliant, explosive and adventurous experience. “Temple of Doom” and “Last Crusade” were both fantastic too (I don’t care what anybody else says about “Temple Of Doom”). Then there’s “Kingdom of Crystal Skull”. While arguably the weakest of the bunch it still packs some nostalgic action and a great spirit of adventure.

“Kingdom of Crystal Skull” takes place almost twenty years after “Last Crusade” where we find Indiana (Harrison Ford still has it) being pursued by as Russian military group led by Irina Spalko (Cate Blanchet “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”). From an explosive first act where Indy battles the military in Area-51 we can gather that this is going to be a fun movie. We then find Indy teaming up with a young fiery kid named Mutt (Shia LaBeouf “Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen”). The duo then travel across the world trying to find the secret behind the ‘Crystal Skull’.

Harrison Ford proves he still has it when he once again dons his whip as the beloved Indiana Jones. However, he cannot help but look a little tired this time around. Cate Blanchet gives a dull performance as the villain. Then there’s Shia LaBeouf, who offers nothing and is darn right annoying at times. There’s also Ray Winston (“Beowulf”), who again offers nothing.

All-round the fourth instalment in the “Indiana Jones” franchise proves to be an interesting and fun experience. Although the movie is as silly as “Temple”, it still feels fresh and intriguing. I recommend this to the fans of the other “Indiana Jones” movies and moviegoers that are looking for a fun filled mindless experience. There are some terrible moments like the sequence with the monkeys but there are so many exciting ones. Also, I loved the fridge scene.

“Indecent Proposal” is a somewhat intriguing romantic picture. It shows a lot of potential at times but ends up not fulfilling that potential but I still think it is probably still worth a watch.

Diana (Demi Moore “Striptease”, “G.I. Jane”) and David (Woody Harrelson “The Hunger Games”) are just a normal loving couple but when they encounter a difficult financial situation, a bizarre and sinful proposal comes their way. A very rich man (Robert Redford “The Sting”) offers Diana and David a million dollars if he’s allowed to spend one night with Diana. Despite concerns, they agree and now their marriage is put a serious risk.

Demi Moore gives a good performance as Diana. Moore acts like somebody that really doesn’t want to give in to this proposal and knows it is wrong but can is willing to do this for what she perceives to be a ‘greater good’. Woody Harrelson is fairly convincing as the husband. The interaction between the couple is enjoyable. Robert Redford seems well suited to playing the suave millionaire that would steal somebody’s wife. The interaction between Moore and Redford is really good although I do think their relationship becomes a little simplistic and clichéd towards the end of the picture.

“Indecent Proposal” is really quite good in the halfway mark and it has its moments in the last half but I feel the latter parts of the film don’t capture the intrigue of the earlier parts. I think there are certainly more charming romantic films out there but I think a lot of people will enjoy this one because it really does ask some big questions about both the bond and separation between emotional love and physical love. If you like romantic dramas then you should watch “Indecent Proposal” but if you want a romantic film that’s a little more cheery, watch “While You Were Sleeping” or something like that instead.

“Incubus” is the first movie that I have seen that was filmed in Esperanto, a language devised to help international communication. Besides that, it is also notable because it stars William Shatner (“Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan”) and was director by Leslie Stevens, the creator of “The Outer Limits” television series.

A succubus is tired of luring flawed men and sets her sights on Marc (Shatner), a gentleman with a pure heart and a strong faith in God. When she realises that she has met her match, she calls on ‘Incubus’ (the male version of a succubus). Even though this is a very short film, there really is not enough plot to sustain it.

William Shatner did not speak Esperanto so he had to learn his lines phonetically. Anybody familiar with the original version of “Star Trek” (or any of Shatner’s other work) will know that he has a unique way of delivering lines. It is rather surreal and very funny to see him do the same thing but in another language. The other actors are rather bland. I did like it near the end when the Incubus transforms into a goat that proceeds to go on the attack.

“Incubus” is not as bad as it could have been. Large parts of this low-budget flick are competently crafted and the music is actually quite good. However, I cannot really recommend it to anybody besides the devout Shatner fans that are determined to hunt down every last film starring Captain Kirk. The decision to have the cast members speak in Esperanto certainly adds another layer of novelty to it but I also think that it does give the film an otherworldly quality. I doubt Esperanto will achieve its goal of becoming a universal language to bridge the gaps between different civilisations but it was a nice idea.

Director Christopher Nolan (“Batman Begins”, “Prestige”) gives us yet another intriguing picture, this time in the form of the mind manipulating “Inception”. This is a movie so compelling with its ideas it could revolutionise some aspects of filmmaking.

In “Inception”, Cobb (Leonard DiCaprio “Titanic”) is the world’s greatest thief and the world’s best ‘extractor’; his ability has made him infamous in the world of business espionage. Cobb then finds himself chosen for a special assignment where he must trick a business empire’s new chairman, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy “Batman Begins”), into letting a competitor surpass his company. Cobb and his team are ready but the only problem is that Cobb’s subconscious could be the death of him.

Cobb is a reasonable character given a reasonable performance by Leonardo DiCaprio. Cillian Murphy doesn’t give a particularly memorable performance here, which is a shame. Tom Hardy (“Bronson”), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (“500 Days of Summer”) and the rest of the cast are sadly unmemorable except for the sort-of villain that only appears in a few scenes; she’s Cobb’s wife or at least she was but the version we see are parts of his subconscious. The reason why she’s memorable is because she’s an extreme psychopath and it’s all because Cobb explained a theory to her.

“Inception” definitely will not be remembered for its performances but it definitely will be remembered for its simply spectacular visuals. The scene inside someone’s mind where the whole world changes structure is breath-taking for sure, the car falling at super slow speed is still actually pretty mind-blowing stuff when you see it onscreen. From the decent action to the amazing concepts to the quite frankly stunning special effects, I feel that while “Inception” is not magnificent, it is entertaining enough to certainly warrant a watch. If you want to be impressed then don’t turn away from “Inception”.

John Carpenter (“The Thing”, “They Live”) directs “In The Mouth Of Madness”, which is probably his best movie since “Halloween”. This movie is packed with eerie sights and great special effects. It really feels like “Hellraiser” meets “Children of the Corn”.

In this film, Sam Neill (“Jurassic Park”, “Event Horizon”) plays John Trent, an insurance investigator hired to find a missing author. The author is Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow “Dune”), a horror writer more popular than Stephen King. His books have a significant impact on some readers, even turning them violent. As Trent continues his search, he begins to realise how powerful Cane’s books really are.

Sam Neill is a terrific actor and he does a spectacular job here as John Trent. This man is used to exposing people’s fraudulent claims and therefore, he is determined to believe that what he is seeing is part of an elaborate publicity stunt. Julie Carmen (“Fright Night Part 2”) is good as Linda Styles, Cane’s book editor that joins Trent on his job. Jürgen Prochnow is okay as Cane. There are also some good performances from David Warner (“Tron”), John Glover (“Scrooged”) and Charlton Heston (“Ben-Hur”). Most of the special effects on the creatures look really good but there are one or two that do not look good.

“In The Mouth Of Madness” is an entertaining horror film because it does not focus on the blood and guts but instead on creating a disturbing atmosphere. The music used during the opening titles and for the credits is also really good. I like how the film starts and the ending of the movie is brilliant. John Carpenter can make some really entertaining horror movies and he shows that with this film. If you are a fan of Carpenter or Sam Neill or you like horror movies where the focus is on the atmosphere and the visuals, you should check out “In The Mouth Of Madness”.