Ex Machina

Year: 2014
Running time: 108 minutes
Certificate: 15
Language: English
Screenplay: Alex Garland
Director: Alex Garland
Starring: Alicia Vikander, Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac, Sonoya Mizuno

Alex Garland proves every bit a gifted director as he is writer in his directing debut. Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) is an employee at BlueBook, the fictional world's most popular search engine. We first meet him as he wins a competition to meet Nathan (Oscar Isaac), the reclusive billionaire genius CEO of the company, to get a look at the new top secret project he has been working on.

Ava, planning for her survival.

A trip on a helicopter puts Caleb squarely in the middle of a forested nowhere, where the only structure for miles around is Nathan's home/headquarters, a modern fortress. Nathan is an overbearing alpha male, and Caleb doesn't appear to be at ease around him, but that doesn't dim his obvious excitement when he learns he's to take part in a Turing Test, to decide if Nathan's latest Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) could pass for human. When he's introduced to Ava (Alicia Vikander), Caleb is a little disappointed to find Ava is clearly a robot, with clearly recognisable mechanical parts - surely if he already knows Ava is not human, she couldn't possibly pass the test? Not necessarily so, argues Nathan - it merely makes the test harder to pass.

Throughout his interactions with Ava, Caleb is bewitched, and it is clear the film is far more sophisticated than the premise originally suggested, with the three of them playing power games, attempting to deceive each other. Caleb even begins to be concerned with his own nature, at one point making himself bleed, just to be sure. For Ava, this is a fight for survival, for she knows failing the test would mean her destruction as Nathan moves on to the next iteration. The stakes are clearly much higher for her than for anyone else, and she gets to work on Caleb's inherent decency to bring him onside as quickly as she can.

Caleb and Nathan size each other up.

Most of the film is somewhat uncomfortable, but the third act is downright chilling, and shows us, amongst other things, that Nathan was dead right; without making it obvious that she's a robot, Ava can pass the Turing Test without breaking a sweat. Alicia Vikander steals the film outright with her pitch-perfect performance as the survival-driven robot.

Ava's A.I. being based on the information amassed from the BlueBook search engine is disturbingly plausible and preys on the worries of those concerned by Google and Microsoft's obsession with A.I. The story is gripping and it's hard to decide whether to be pleased or appalled by the time the credits roll.

Score: 8/10

Ex Machina's quality appears to be well recognised out there, according to these reviews by Mark Kermode and Robbie at the Telegraph.

Blue is the Warmest Colour

Year: 2013

Running time: 180 minutes

Certificate: 18

Language: French

Screenplay: Abdellatif Kechiche, Ghalia Lacroix

Director: Abdellatif Kechiche

Starring: Adèle Exarchopoulos, Léa Seydoux, Salim Kechiouche, Aurélien Recoing, Catherine Salée, Alma Jodorowsky, Benjamin Siksou, Jérémie Laheurte, Anne Loiret, Benoît Pilot

The joyous flush of new love.

It's hard to find the right words to talk about this film, because it caused me to have a very strong emotional reaction - I was wrung out by the end of it, for reasons I'll go into later. Then there was the interviews the two lead actresses started giving on the promotional tour, where they would talk about their discomfort filming some of the scenes, which appeared to surprise director Abdellatif Kechiche, who then proceeded to rant to all and sundry. Having had such a powerful, profound and personal reaction to it, to find there was some bad blood now between the actresses and their director has inevitably soured the experience a little for me, which is a real shame, because it is such an incredible piece of work.

To sum up, it's a about loving and losing for the first time, but to condense 3 hours of exquisite cinema to such a short line is to do the film a grave injustice. Adèle (Adèle Exarchopoulos) is a teenage high-school student, with a fairly average home life. Like most people her age, she is trying to negotiate the rocky path to adulthood, which naturally involves love and sex. She is pretty underwhelmed with sex with her boyfriend Thomas (Jérémie Laheurte) and before long ends her relationship with him. Adèle is bowled over one day when she catches a glimpse of a beautiful blue-haired woman in the street, and when her friend takes her to a gay bar one night she meets her again. The woman with the blue hair is named Emma (Léa Seydoux) and as their meet-cute turns to friendship and then something more, Adèle falls, and falls hard, for Emma.

There is some friction between Adèle and her friends when her romantic involvement with another woman becomes impossible to hide, but this is not a film about the struggle for equality LGBT people face; it is about a young person falling in love for the first time. Adèle and Emma become lovers, and there are undeniably some very graphic sex scenes. To be honest, I don't think the film would've lost anything if they were a little shorter and a tad less graphic but, as explicit as they are, they have the affect of underlining the intense nature of their relationship. Emma is a little older and more experienced than Adèle and so it seems clear to me that while Emma is certainly committed to Adèle, she isn't quite as hopelessly infatuated. Emma is clearly a passionate person, but while it seems Adèle burns brightly for Emma and Emma alone (even as she leaves school and begins work as a teacher it seems clear that her heart and everything else is given over to Emma), Emma is an artist and finds joy and passion in other things as well as Adèle. When Emma starts spending a lot of time on a new project, it causes Adèle to feel like she's being left behind.

Adèle is broken.

Adèle, feeling lost without her lodestone, makes the mistake of beginning an affair with colleague Antoine (Benjamin Siksou). When Emma discovers what she has done, she breaks up the relationship and throws Adèle out, in an extended scene which is gut-wrenching. The final part of the film follows Adèle as she tries to come to terms with the break-up and face the prospect of life alone, or, at least, life without Emma, which for Adèle, amounts to pretty much the same thing.

I remember with crystal clarity the feelings that come with falling overwhelmingly in love with someone without enough life experience to really process it; I fell for the woman I would eventually marry when young and at college. At some point after graduating University, Rach had a work placement in Ringwood near Bournemouth. She loved it, and she felt joy and growth and new experiences and was enjoying every second while I sat around at home and missed her. It was almost like I could feel her slipping away and the thought of not being with her was more than I felt I could bear. I remembered these feelings intensely when watching Adèle, feeling like Emma was slipping away, make her mistake, and felt such empathy.

I watched Adèle go through the outcome that once scared me more than anything, and the pain feels genuine. She's adrift, alone, with nothing but a hole where she was once whole. It is hard to watch, and I wondered at one point if she was going to end her life. She doesn't, but I get the distinct impression she was considering just letting herself float out to sea and leaving it all behind. As the film ends, Adèle is still hurting.

Adèle just wants to drift away.

Of course, the reception the film got shows I'm not the only person to be affected by the film in such a way, but the fact that these feelings are commonplace makes them no less powerful, and this is not the first film to tackle such a subject. The difference is the way it is made. The camera is obsessively infatuated with Adèle; as in love with her as she is with Emma. The close ups are so close, and the camera lingers on her for so long, and the scenes are so intense, that you feel a part of the intimacy; it is potent. Adèle Exarchopoulos is so mesmerising to watch, so expressive that even when Adèle is heartbroken, the camera pours obsessively over the contours of her face. It's astonishing, but only because she's astonishing. She and Léa Seydoux are fully deserving of the rare exception of sharing the Palm d'Or with director Kechiche at Cannes 2013.

Prepare to have your heart broken, but it is so worth it.

Score: 9/10

The reviews out there, quite rightly, do tend to have reservations about the most controversial aspects of the film. This review from Kristin at Film Comment highlights problems with the way the film sometimes feels like an observance of a lesbian relationship from a straight male perspective, but does acknowledge its strengths as well, calling it 'memorable but flawed'. This one from Tim at the Telegraph is also positive, but based on his opinion on the second half, it didn't strike the chord with him that it did with me.

Ghostbusters

Year: 1984 (Original), 1989 (Sequel), 2016 (Remake)
Running time: 105 minutes (Original), 108 minutes (Sequel), 116 minutes (Remake)
Certificate: PG (Original, Sequel), 12 (Remake)
Language: English
Screenplay: Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis (Original, Sequel), Katie Dippold, Paul Feig (Remake)
Director: Ivan Reitman (Original, Sequel), Paul Feig (Remake)
Starring: Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Harold Ramis, Ernie Hudson, Sigourney Weaver, Rick Moranis, Annie Potts, William Atherton, David Margulies, Slavitza Jovan, Peter MacNicol, Kurt Fuller, Wilhelm von Homburg, Will Deutschendorf, Hank Deutschendorf, Kristen Wiig, Melissa McCarthy, Kate McKinnon, Leslie Jones, Chris Hemsworth, Neil Casey

I can’t remember exactly how old I was when I first saw Ghostbusters, but I know I was young. Embarrassingly, it scared the bejesus out of me, so I was quite a bit older when next I saw it and was able to see it for was it was – a supernatural comedy bordering on genius. Ray Stantz (Dan Ackroyd) and Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis) are studying parapsychology at Columbia University. Also 'studying', although, perhaps simply tagging along, is Peter Venkman (Bill Murray). The three of them are trying to collect evidence of the existence of ghosts, and in an opening scene as memorable and famous as Raiders of the Lost Ark, they find just that in a New York library. Thrown out of the University, the three of them pool their (mostly Ray's) resources and go in to business as 'Ghostbusters'. After a shaky start, business begins to boom in the wake of a visit to a hotel to meet and catch a 'class 5 full roaming vapor', better known to us as Slimer.

First ghost busted, Venkman and Spengler make up the bill on the fly.

The increase in supernatural activity heralds the coming of Sumerian god of destruction Gozer (Slavitza Jovan). Gozer happens to be dropping in on the penthouse apartment of Dana Barrett (Sigourney Weaver). Dana has been in touch with the Ghostbusters to report unusual goings-on in her kitchen, with Dana eventually being possessed by Zuul, one of Gozer's minions and demi-god in her own right. The three scientists have an easy chemistry together that makes the movie great fun to watch over and over. When Ernie Hudson joins them as Winston Zeddmore (the character names are just brilliantly implausible), he adds a touch of everyman to the three super-geniuses (ok, maybe two super-geniuses and Venkman) that makes for a great comedic mix. Each of them have their moments, as do put-upon secretary Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts) and Lewis Tully (Rick Moranis - a truly gifted and under-rated physical comedian), an accountant also living in Dana's building in supporting roles.

The show-stealer here is, as you might expect, Bill Murray in what is still one of his signature roles. His scenes with Sigourney Weaver are a joy to watch - they're one of those onscreen couples that have that chemistry, that spark that is a perfect fit for romantic comedy. Most of his lines are eminently quotable – the exchange with meddling EPA officer Walter Peck (William Atherton) ending with "Yes it's true; this man has no dick" being one of the first to spring to mind.

It is the 1980s, so as you’d expect the effects and the music are slightly dated, but due to the quality of the writing and the obvious care with which it’s been made, these problems are easily overcome. The writing, the quality and chemistry of the cast and the spot-on mix of comedy and supernatural adventure come together in a film that I genuinely don't think I could ever get tired of.

Experiments in mood slime.

The sequel arrived 5 years later, and while it is undeniably an attempt to pretty much rerun the original with a couple of cosmetic differences, I find it to be every bit as well written, funny and enjoyable as the original. It's unavoidable I suppose that it gets maligned by many fans due to its too-obvious similarities, but, like Gremlins 2, I'm just having too much fun to give it a hard time (the courtroom set piece after they get arrested for digging up the sidewalk is a particular highlight). All the original cast return to take on Vigo (Wilhelm von Homburg) a bloodthirsty tyrannical sorcerer from the 16th Century, whose malevolent spirit resides in a painting, preparing to be reborn by possessing Dana's baby son Oscar (twins Will and Hank Deutschendorf) just in time for New Year.

It seems old Vigo is feeding off the negative energy of New York, so our heroes need to harness whatever positive energy is left to take him on. And yes, that is every bit as cheesy as it sounds, but as with the first film, there is enough talent to pull it off. So despite the critical drubbing Ghostbusters 2 got, for me they are both pretty evenly matched.

And then there is the remake. Rather than assume my childhood is ruined and take to the Internet to declare it a terrible idea, like so many other penis-having fans did ("Ain't no bitches gonna bust no ghosts" declared one online moron, a line which was actually used in the film), I waited to watch it first before forming an opinion. Although, whenever someone tries to remake a film with a place in the history of popular culture such as Ghostbusters, there always tends to be a question of 'Why?', gender politics notwithstanding - for another example, see Gus Van Sant's lamentable Psycho remake.

The talent was certainly there - Paul Feig has a decent track record, and Melissa McCarthy is undoubtedly funny. in addition, Kristen Wiig is pretty much one of the finest comedians working in film today. There are differences, but the plot generally follows a similar outline of the first two, only with new characters. All of the original cast show up in cameos at some point, save Rick Moranis and the sadly deceased Harold Ramis, which is a nice way to show the makers had the support of the people behind the first two.

2016 Ghostbusters, bustin' ghosts.

Yes, the genders of all the characters are reversed, and no, it does not make one iota of difference. I think it works having the Ghostbusters all the same gender (or at least incompatible sexual preferences), because then there is no attempt to shoehorn some unnecessary romantic subplot in, and the group can bond as a group of good friends instead. The hostile reaction to the film was way out of proportion, with Leslie Jones even getting slated for not being attractive enough for the mouth-breathing masses - I wonder if Ernie Hudson had the same problems in 1984?

So putting all that aside and considering the film on its own merits, trying not to be influenced by the franchise's beloved status, what's it like? It's ok, I suppose. It's quite funny in parts, all the cast do well in slightly underwritten parts, the standout being Kate McKinnon as the slightly wired nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and there is plenty of supernatural adventure sprinkled with jokes. But it's not great, not by a long shot. Set up to fail by a rabid mostly-male fanbase it might have been, but even were that not the case, it's hard to see this being good enough to launch an extended Ghostbusters franchise, as was the intention.

A stone-cold classic original, an under-rated, almost as good sequel, and a 'meh' remake.

Score:
Ghostbusters (1984): 9/10
Ghostbusters 2: 8/10
Ghostbusters (2016): 5/10

Going back to 1984 shows a surprisingly mixed bag of reviews for Ghostbusters, as shown by this review by Arthur at The Hollywood Reporter and this less than impressed one by Janet at The New York Times. This article by Seb at Den of Geek makes a fine case for reappraising the sequel, citing as I've done the courtroom scene, but also pointing out Harold Ramis' superb deadpan delivery. Finally, while I'm pleased the remake is reviewed better than I'd feared, I think this review by Matt at Wired is wildly over-effusive in its praise.

Belleville Rende-vouz

Year: 2003
Running time: 78 minutes
Certificate: 12
Language: French
Screenplay: Sylvain Chomet
Director: Sylvain Chomet
Starring (voices): Monica Viegas, Michèle Caucheteux, Michel Robin, Jean-Claude Donda

Champion, shortly before his run-in with mafia goons.

This is a film with a very distinct style that takes a bit of getting used to, but as the story develops it becomes a cracking little yarn with charming characters and a brilliantly outlandish plot. The look and the sound of it are really unique, and the animation has a beautiful, if unusual, look to it.

Champion is a young boy who lives with his grandma Madame Souza (Monica Viegas). When Champion shows an interest in cycling at a young age, Madame Souza takes it upon herself to become his personal trainer, encouraging him to practice and train with the help of her trusty whistle. As Champion grows up, his interest in cycling becomes all-consuming, with the landscape changing around him, Madame Souza, their dog and their home. The artistry on show used to depict this passing of time is spellbinding and is a splendid way to get us settled in the strangely-drawn world.

The adult Champion (Michel Robin) takes part in the Tour de France, being essentially what his life has been building to. At that moment the story takes a bit of a turn. Champion is abducted by the mafia during the race and forced to cycle constantly for the sake of a betting game run by his kidnappers. It's up to Madame Souza to track down poor Champion, and following the trail to Belleville, she finds the trail dried up and her alone in a strange and frightening city. And here the story takes another turn. The Triplets of Belleville, a famous music act from years ago (we saw them in their prime earlier on in the story), now three elderly women, look after Madame Souza, providing her with a place to stay and a spot on their musical shows, which they are still performing all these years later.

The Belleville triplets: still vital after all these years.

The climactic rescue of Champion by the triplets and Souza and ensuing car chase is superbly realised and is a wonderfully animated set-piece. The story of a man obsessed by cycling being kidnapped by the French mafia and rescued by his grandmother and three elderly sisters is a testament to the resilience and power of women. Champion is who he is because of Madame Souza, and she was only able to rescue Champion with the help of these three old women living on the poverty line. The triplets live life with a sparkle in their eyes, rather than dwelling on their fame-filled past, they are vivid and living very much in the moment. There is a wonderful little moment at the end when Champion, who has been a rather sombre presence throughout most of the film, acknowledges what he owes the women in his life.

Score: 7/10

Belleville Rende-vouz is well-reviewed out there - have a read of this one from Nik at Future Movies and this one from Nick at Screen Daily.

The Lovely Bones

Year: 2009
Running time: 135 minutes
Certificate: 12
Language: English
Screenplay: Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Peter Jackson
Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz, Stanley Tucci, Susan Sarandon, Michael Imperioli, Rose McIver

Susie's heaven seems lonely.

Based on the hugely popular novel by Alice Sebold, Peter Jackson tackles something a little smaller than Lord of the Rings and King Kong, and makes something that is at once engaging and underwhelming, seemingly unsure of what it wants to be and say.

Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is a typical teenager in 1970s Pennsylvania, experiencing the first blushes of love, when she is raped and murdered by neighbourhood freakazoid George Harvey (Stanley Tucci). Narrating her life from some kind of heavenly holding area above, she watches while her family struggle to come to terms with her death.

The film is strongest in the earth-bound scenes, including the electric tension as Susie's sister Lindsey (Rose McIver) acts on her suspicions, turning amateur detective, and early scenes filling in the details of Susie's life through a hazy 70s lens, everything lent a strong sense of bitter sadness, knowing as we do that this is a life with promise that was all cut cruelly short. It's why I think Jackson goes all-out in the depiction of Susie's afterlife; the distressing fact of Susie's brutal death, and the toll it takes on her father Jack (Mark Wahlberg) and mother Abigail (Rachel Weisz) requires tempering with the hope that somewhere, somehow, she's ok. Of course, this is a movie, so you can suspend disbelief enough for this, but this papering over the harsh reality that people that suffer at the hands of others like Susie likely don't have the chance for this sort of closure is never far from souring the moment.

It's never bad exactly, but it is tonally uneven, which is sometimes quite jarring, and I can never get away from the fact that while for most people Harvey's death would seem the most appropriate way to pay for his crimes, I felt that in a way he managed to escape without ever really having to face justice, which was somewhat unsatisfying, but also true to life I suppose.

Tragedy looms.

Visually, it is perhaps unsurprising that Jackson's cinematic paintbrush excels, but while Susie's world-after-death is frequently eye-poppingly gorgeous, it is the colour palette and stylistic choices employed to depict the 1973 Pennsylvanian Winter that is truly eye-catching; the film is never less than beautiful. But as lovely-looking as The Lovely Bones is (and it is), it is the two performances at its centre that are the reasons it succeeds in spite of Jackson, along with co-writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens frequently fumbling the storytelling. Stanley Tucci's turn as serial killer George Harvey is incredible, holding your attention as a sad sack nobody who's a monster under the surface, but matching the seasoned pro every step of the way is Saoirse Ronan as Susie, giving the tragic young girl life and light, making Susie's horrific fate all the more upsetting. It's no surprise at all that Ronan has gone on to become one of the very best actresses working today.

It has its shortcomings, but the cinematography and performances from Tucci and Ronan make it worth trying.

Score: 6/10

The Lovely Bones is a film that genuinely split opinion, which considering it can't even make its own mind up about what it wants to be, doesn't really surprise me. These examples from Roger Ebert and The Telegraph quite viscerally despise it, but Ian Freer at Empire was really quite taken with it.

Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street

Year: 2007
Running time: 116 minutes
Certificate: 18
Language: English
Screenplay: John Logan
Director: Tim Burton
Starring: Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, Sacha Baron Cohen, Laura Michelle Kelly, Jamie Campbell Bower, Jayne Wisener

Double trouble.

The pairing of Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, while not as critically acclaimed as that of Scorsese and De Niro, is certainly as prolific and probably more commercially successful. Their collaborations form some of the high points of both of their careers – Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood, Sleepy Hollow and others. Sweeney Todd is little more than an interesting misstep in the course of their long partnership.

Depp is well cast as the murderous Todd, arriving in London to wreak bloody vengeance on those who did him wrong in his past, back when he went by the name of Benjamin Barker. Chief among these is the corrupt Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman), whose lust for Barker's wife Lucy (Laura Michelle Kelly) leads to his conviction for a crime he didn't commit and exile. Fifteen years later, Barker returns under the name Sweeney Todd with revenge in his heart. Todd learns that Laura took her life following the abuse of the Judge and that Turpin has now made himself the tutor of their daughter Johanna (Jayne Wisener).

Returning to his barbershop business as a cover for his murderous plans, Todd works with the thoroughly unpleasant Mrs. Lovett (Helena Bohnam Carter) to turn his victims into pies to sell in her shop. The pair develop a bustling business as Todd slices neck after neck all the while working towards Judge Turpin, the man who ruined his life. As you’d expect, just about everyone ends up killed in one ghastly fashion or another, with the Judge's end particularly grim thanks to a sickening crack accompanying his head banging off the floor on his way down to become pies. There is nothing redeemable about these characters and so there is little in the way of interest in their fates, with Burton seemingly only interested in how ugly he can make the story.

Vengeance is near.

The gory subject matter might feel at odds with the musical element, but the songs, taken from Stephen Sondheim's 1979 musical, are probably the most engaging part of the film, long considered stage-musical royalty and the cast pull them off nicely.

I don’t mind violence in films, but the endless amount of blood, of horrid characters with no redeeming features and no sign of anything to lighten the mood in the entire running time, it is too relentlessly grim for me and left me with a bit of a queasy feeling.

It's clearly well put together and made with talent, but it’s certainly not something I would feel like watching again. Nothing special.

Score: 5/10

There's clearly something I'm missing about Burton's bloody vision if these reviews by Pete at Rolling Stone and Kim at Empire are anything to go by, but I'm fine with not going back to see if I can find it.

As Good As It Gets

Year: 1997
Running time: 139 minutes
Certificate: 15
Language: English
Screenplay: Mark Andrus, James L. Brooks
Director: James L. Brooks
Starring: Jack Nicholson, Helen Hunt, Greg Kinnear, Cuba Gooding Jr., Skeet Ulrich, Shirley Knight

As Good As It Gets is great, but not as much fun as it used to be. Melvin Udall (Jack Nicholson) is an arsehole, frankly. Self involved, rude and uncaring of other people's feelings. He is also an author, writing popular romantic fiction. Melvin has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and lives his life via a series of ticks, quirks, and an overpowering urge to be clean. In spite of Melvin being so unlikable, Nicholson, in one of his best ever roles, makes him a full character that you can get to like and even begin to root for, while cringing at the way he treats everybody he comes into contact with.

The road trip from hell begins, and only one of them was happy about it.

Living opposite Melvin is artist Simon Bishop (Greg Kinnear). Simon is gay and owns a small dog named Verdell, and is frequently the target of Melvin's unpleasantness, along with his agent Frank (Cuba Gooding Jr.). Melvin isn't afraid to let rip with some downright offensive behaviour, but viewer outrage is tempered somewhat by the fact that Melvin seems to dislike all groups of people equally.

As part of Melvin's obsessive routine, he always eats at the same café, at the same table and is served by the same waitress Carol Connelly (Helen Hunt), pretty much because she is the only member of staff able to tolerate him. When Carol has to take some time off to care for her critically ill son, Melvin's routine is all thrown out and he has to get her back as quickly as possible. This means using some of the fortune he's earned writing to pay for top-of-the-range healthcare for Carol's son. This causes their relationship to take an awkward turn as it's unclear from Carol's perspective if Melvin is only interested in getting Carol back to work or if there is a romantic motivation. At first that would seem ridiculous, but throughout the course of the film we see these two characters spend time together and it becomes more plausible.

When Simon is brutally attacked in his home, Melvin is roped into looking after Verdell while he recovers, and this is another change that is difficult for Melvin to cope with at first, but comes to change his relationship with Simon (and Verdell), and Melvin, Simon and Carol make for an unusual and dysfunctional group of, for want of a better word, friends.

Running into financial difficulty and unable to find his artistic muse, Simon has little choice but to travel to his parents to ask them for support. Melvin, who by now is rather attached to Verdell, agrees to drive, and convinces Carol to come along to make things less awkward. Insulting introductions complete ("Carol the waitress; Simon the fag"), the three of them set off. In spite of Melvin's unpleasantness, there is a touching moment between him and Carol when they are out for dinner, during which Melvin describes his attempts to improve himself in light of Carol's earlier assertion that she won't sleep with him. It's beautifully crafted and played note-perfect by Nicholson and Hunt.

Carol, having unexpectedly received the best compliment she's ever had.

By the end, Simon has rekindled his muse, and is living with Melvin until he gets back on his feet, and Melvin and Carol are tentatively trialling the first steps in a potential relationship; an occurrence so astounding for Melvin that he isn't even that bothered when he steps on a crack in the pavement. Maybe there's hope for him after all.

Watching As Good As It Gets in the 90s was a great deal of fun. Back then it probably would have got an 8. Nowadays, we are more in tune with the damage that can be inflicted on people when they are treated the way Melvin treats people, so there's less laughter and more cringe. In addition, we are currently in a grip of right-wing fervour, where treating minority groups the way Melvin does (and worse) has gained a sense of legitimacy, thanks to a rabid press who can't tell the difference between patriotism and racism. It's much less comfortable seeing Melvin's attitude towards homosexuality, race and women when it's coming from those in charge, supported by the media. Is it fair to lower a score due to the political climate at the time you watch it? I think so.

But, if you can put that aside and make like it's 1997, this is still a well-crafted story about three people that fit together even though they really shouldn't.

Score: 7/10

Todd at Variety did not enjoy it very much, but Scott, Eric and Patrick at Three Movie Buffs all seem on a par with me.