Cormac McCarthy's Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel is the basis for this story about a man (Viggo Mortensen)  and his son (Kodi Smit-Mcphee), trying to survive in a post-apocalyptic world where the Earth is dying. In this monochromatic world, the sun is hidden behind an oppressive bank of clouds, nothing is growing, all the animals are dead, and what is left of humanity has turned to cannibalism to survive. Terrified for his son's future, the man is distrustful and desperate as he tries to find enough food and shelter, while the world grows colder and ever more inhospitable. Heading for the dubious safety of the coast, they struggle to keep together and alive in world gone wild.

Chances are, like me, you haven't read this book, so it's hard to say how the book translates to the screen and you probably shouldn't judge it by the book anyway. As a movie, however, it is spectacularly and relentlessly bleak, the lack of hope oppressive and so tiring, that a couple of times I found myself hoping the characters would use the two bullets they had left to put us all out of our misery.

The nature of the apocalypse remains unstated, as do the names of the characters. The misery is broken periodically by the man's dreams of happier times, and his wife (Charlize Theron) who succumbs to the loss of all hope much sooner than her husband and her son.

Viggo Mortensen is intense and unyielding as the man trying to cling to the last vestiges of his humanity in a world where it no longer exists. The stand-out, however, is newcomer Kodi Smit McPhee who, in addition to looking as if he really is Charlize Theron's son, delivers a surprisingly nuanced performance for one so young. You can be sure you'll be seeing more of this young man.

Directed by Australian director John Hillcoat — whose previous outing about a man who sells out his brother to save his own neck, The Proposition, penned by Nick Cave, is almost cheerful by comparison — the film never wavers from its bleak tone. Hillcoat has an eye for the gothic, and the graphic. Be prepared for some grisly and confronting scenes as father and son dodge roving bands of cannibals, stumbling across their killing grounds more than once, which are depicted in great and glorious detail.

One can't fault the acting in this film, the cinematography or the art direction. I thought the ending a little too glib and Hollywood, however.  In a world so lacking in hope, it seemed rather contrived to have it suddenly spring from nowhere, although I understand the need for some sort of resolution that didn't leave the audience wanting to slash their wrists with despair by the end of the film. I'm not sure if the book has the same ending, but if it has, perhaps it needed some relief, too.

This is not a date movie, but if you want to see something that will stay with you long after the come up, then this is definitely for you.

Well... I thought my Radio movie reviewing days were over, now I left Australia, but it seems that even with the time difference, I'm still in demand in WA. So I'll be doing the reviews on a Tuesday for ABC regional radio (and ocassionally Perth) every week by phone.

So... here is this week's review.

Shutter Island

Martin Scorsese's latest outing is the mystery thriller Shutter Island, set in 1954. After the death of his wife (Michelle Williams) in a fire, U.S. marshal Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio), requests the assignment to investigate the disappearance of a patient from Boston's Shutter Island, where the Ashecliffe Hospital for the criminally insane is housed. Once he reaches the island with his partner Chuck (Mark Ruffalo), he is frustrated in his investigation by the psychiatrists (Ben Kingsley and Max von Sydow) running the place. He soon begins to suspect the US Government is sanctioning experiments on mental patients on Shutter Island using techniques pioneered by the Nazi's, based in part on his own experiences when he helped liberate Dachau during World War II. When a hurricane cuts the island off from the mainland and any chance of escape, Teddy is forced to open some old wounds to get to the truth, which is something he really isn't prepared to face.

Based on Dennis Lehane's novel, Shutter Island is a terse thriller that spends much of its time in flashbacks, that seem irrelevant until you get near the end of the film. The acting, as one would expect from any Scorsese-helmed film, is excellent. The cast is impressive, even among the minor players, which includes Patricia Clarkson as a psychiatrist, and an excellent Jackie Earle Hailey as George Noyce, an inmate whose recollections of events are the key to Teddy working out what is going on.

It is on this point, however, that the film unravelled a bit for me. This is a story with a twist, so I don't want to say too much, but the observant among you will begin to work out what it is, about two-thirds of the way into the story. You see, my problem is that at no time does our hero work it out. He learns the truth, of course, but someone has to explain it to him. I felt this lessened the impact of the ending, which would have been far more powerful, in my opinion, if Teddy had come to the truth himself.

Having said that, it's probably the only fault I can find with this film. It is scary, tense and very well acted and, unless you're especially fussy like me, won't find much to complain about.

Well... I thought it was more impressive the second time around. The 3D was awesome. I also think the worldbuilding in this movie is incomparable. There is not a detail missed, right down to Jake's withered legs...

And it's made a billion dollars in 20 days...

Not bad for something that's basically a Western where the Indians win:)

OK, let's get this straight...

I haven't seen Twilight, nor New Moon and don't intend to. I've not read the books, either, although all power to Stephanie Meyer for making it big. I never begrudge any author their success, because I know how hard it is to come by.

I'm not interested in this franchise, mostly because I despise wishy-washy doormat heroines, believe you shouldn't mess with vampire lore (ie sparkly vampires in the sunlight instead of incinerating ones... puh...leeese...) and I think Robert Pattinson is beyond unttractive, but actively creepy...

Having said that, I did come across this review on E!Online, which offers a variety of reviews, depending on where you sit on the "Twilight Mania Scale"

It's very funny, and I supsect exceedingly accurate.

You're a Superfan! You collapsed into a jellylike mass when R.Pattz first appeared in Twilight—or you are Ted Casablanca:

This film will not disappoint. But then again, as long as Robert Pattinson is present, it'd be hard for any film to let you down. You won't get a ton of Rob, though, as his chaste vampire Edward Cullen appears mostly as a wispy cloud of distant romance, whining little more than "pleeeease" while his dear heartbroken Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) mopes and experiments with leather-jacketed danger.

That said, the climax does involve Pattz going shirtless. And the very end of the movie will likely make you collapse into a jellylike mass all over again. If you're a drooling Rob fan, that should keep you atremble through the debut of the third film, Eclipse, next summer.

YOUR GRADE: A-

________

You're Kind of a Fan! First movie surprised you, and now you're hooked.

If it was Pattinson that first lured you in, you run the risk of being lured back out, unless you can get equally excited about shirtless 17-year-old jailbait.

The real stars of this movie are Jacob's (or rather, Taylor Lautner's) ridiculously shaped pecs. They have about as much acting ability as Pattz himself, whose diction disintegrates in direct proportion to his broken, bloodless heart.

However, if it's Stewart's performance that first impressed you, you won't be let down. She's as bewildered and slack-jawed as ever, now new and improved thanks to suicidal tendencies.

YOUR GRADE: B-

________

You're Team Stephenie! You love the books, but the first movie did nothing for you.

If you fixate on funny things like plot and character—in movies, anyway—too bad. Edward's torture over a perceived lack of "soul" translates into a vague Marlon Brando impression for Pattinson. At one point he crushes a phone, and things get exciting for a second.

As important and interesting as side characters like the Volturi are in Stephenie Meyer's literary universe, they get to chew very little scenery this go-around.

Dakota Fanning whips into the picture, all schoolgirl braids and red-eyed adolescent menace, but she barely sticks around long enough to murmur the word pain. And the icy wit of seasoned British actors like Michael Sheen is largely wasted.

But other new characters get plenty of time to play onscreen, and even book fans should be happy with the well-cast wolf pack. They're all fangs and snickers, and they steal every scene they're in.

YOUR GRADE: C

________

You're Just a Regular Person! You don't care about Twilight either way, but usually go see whatever big movies are out.

Well, here's the synopsis: Vampire Edward dumps girlfriend Bella, and she sits in a room for several months, for reasons that are clear only to readers of the Twilight novels. (Director Chris Weitz seems to think every teenage girl goes catatonic for three or four months after a breakup, and also that prolonged moping makes for good cinema.)

Finally, the girl toys around with a boy named Jacob, who seems just fine until he starts baying in the moonlight. And waxing forth about how dangerous he is. Long lectures follow about who will be able to protect who.

Edward finally figures out he was wrong to leave Bella, and high drama ensues, full of slow motion and shirtlessness.

Now, one of the major problems here is that neither Weitz nor Pattinson sells us on what's so dreamy about this cranberry-lipped, nearly mute Edward Cullen guy. Not when there's a pliant, shirtless young werewolf waiting to make Bella his princess. (Hi, superfan. We know you get it.)

The special effects are fine, the music is great and, like the first installment, New Moon has an intimate, indie feel. The cinematography and effects have improved over Twilight, but unless moping counts as an event for you, there may not be enough whizbang to fulfill expectations as an "event film."

YOUR GRADE: C-

Roland Emmerich, who bought us Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow stretches the disaster movie envelope with 2012 to bring us the disaster movie to end all disaster movies.

Built around the rather wobbly premise that because one itty-bitty millenia-long calendar carved into a remote Mayan temple stops on Dec 21, 2012, the world is going to end on that day, 2012 shows us the end of the world mostly through the eyes of not-very-successful author Jackson Curtis (John Cusack), who stumbles across the truth a heartbeat ahead of everyone else and then sets out to save his kids, his ex-wife (Amanda Peet), her boyfriend, his boss, his boss's kids, his boss's girlfriend, his boss's girlfriend's boyfriend and, naturally, a dog.

Leading the predictions of doom is Dr Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor), whose job it is to advise the President (Danny Glover) and fend off the evil plans of Carl Anheuser (Oliver Platt), the Whitehouse Chief of Staff who manages to wheedle his way into power when the noble president decides to go down with his ship... ie, the US of A.

Emmerich doesn't miss a cliché in this film. Or a disaster. By heating the Earth's core with solar radiation, "the likes of which has never happened before", the Earth's crust starts to move, dropping California into the ocean and conveniently moving China closer to the US, saving our doughty refugees from oblivion in the nick of time. Can't have our heroes dying halfway through the film, after all, even if, you know, that would be the only logical outcome at that point...

But our are on a mission, you see, to find the secret government project responsible for building huge arks set up to save the world's artworks and anybody who can afford the one billion Euro per seat price tag.

One of the Curtis kids is even named Noah, I kid you not.

We have earthquakes. The super volcano in Yellowstone National Park goes off. Tidal waves break over the Himalayas. The San Andreas Fault, well, falters... Every major religious landmark is destroyed, except the Islamic ones, because the producers didn't want to risk a fatwah. They even manage to get a nod to the Posiedon Adventure in there for a moment or two.

And yet our heroes, who should arguably by now be suffering the worst case of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ever recorded, manage to fly through pyroclastic clouds, survive plane crashes, near drownings and the death of six billion people, give or take, and end up with a cheery smile and the hope for a brighter future in Africa, where apparently nothing much happened. No word at the end of the film about what the Africans might think of that plan.

This is guilty-pleasure popcorn cinema at its finest and I thoroughly enjoyed every absurd moment of it. The acting is fine, insofar as all the actors manager to deliver their lines convincingly, and without cracking up, even Danny Glover when he gives the obligatory Presidential address to the nation, and Chiwetel Ejiofor when he's trying to save a bunch of refugees with a speech so cheesily noble one's cholesterol count will probably increase just by watching him deliver it,

The special effects in this film are awesome and if you're a closet fan of classics like The Towering Inferno, Earthquake, Volcano, or any of Emmerich's other attempts to destroy planet Earth, you're in for a treat. If not, stay at home. You will think it is silly.