THE SCARLET HOUR

A surprisingly tough piece of pulp fiction from an unlikely source. Michael Curtiz made "The Scarlet Hour" in 1956 but it wasn't really a success, perhaps because its leads, newcomers Carol Ohmart and Tom Tryon, weren't really up to the job. She's the unhappily married younger wife of James Gregory and he's Gregory's right-hand man with whom she's having an affair. The convoluted plot has them overhearing some gangsters planning a robbery so she talks Tryon into robbing the robbers so she can get away from her husband.

Basically it's a B-Movie and its "Double Indemnity" style plot isn't new but it exerts a tawdry fascination and as well as Gregory there's a good supporting cast that also includes Elaine Stritch and E.G. Marshall not to mention Nat King Cole singing 'Never Let Me Go'. If it's not in the top-drawer of crime movies there are enough twists and turns to give it an edge over some others in the genre and Curtiz's direction is, for the most part, pretty faultless. It's just a pity about Ohmart and Tryon.

THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT

You know that a Lars von Trier serial killer movie is unlikely to be like anyone else's serial killer movie; that it is most likely to be more gruesome and perhaps even with a streak of very black humour and "The House that Jack Built" certainly doesn't disappoint. What we might not have guessed was that it would take the form of a dialogue between our serial killer, Jack, (a never better Matt Dillon), and some Stygian boatman who is probably rowing him all the way to Hades, (Bruno Ganz. perfectly cast).

When it was shown at Cannes a number of critics walked out. Why? Could they really have been so sensitive or did they just want to punish von Trier for even showing up? Certainly no-one could deny that as serial killer movies go this one is highly original; you might even call it pretentious but then you'd be missing the joke or could that have been the reason for those walk-outs? Serial killers aren't supposed to be funny.

Using animation, paintings and newsreels to illustrate Jack's 'career' von Trier goes his own way as usual and the von Trier way is, as we know, both shocking and disturbing in ways other director's films simply aren't. If you want to see a 'thriller', forget it but if you want to get inside the head of one crazily inventive outsider, (von Trier, who else), then this is the one for you.

CLASSE TOUS RISQUES

Both Bresson and Melville are reputed to be big fans of "Classe Tous Risques" and it's easy to see why; either man could have directed this classic French gangster picture. The actual director was Claude Sautet and it's one of the greatest second films in movie history, (in the 15 year period between 1956 and 1970 Sautet made only 4 films). He made this one in 1960 around the time of the New Wave and while it's more traditional than something Godard or Truffaut might have done, nevertheless Sautet brings to it a freshness of approach that other gangster pictures of the period seem to lack. From the absolutely stunning opening sequence it's clear that this film will be infused with a good dose of existential angst as well as the requisite thrills that a really good gangster movie needs.

Two fugitives, (Lino Ventura and Stan Krol), have decided it's time to get out of Italy and back to France as the net closes in around them but they need money. They commit a foolhardy, though daring, daylight robbery and go on the run. This opening and the chase that follows is as good as anything in crime movies. The money they make, however, is hardly enough to sustain them, (Ventura has a wife and two sons to support), so they must rely on a network of friends and criminal associates and men on the run, already operating on the very edge, need all the friends they can get, however untrustworthy they may be and these guys friends prove to be very untrustworthy indeed but when tragedy strikes Ventura seems to have no option.

With the possible exceptions of Dassin's "Rififi" and several of Jean-Pierre Melville's classic gangster pictures this remains one of the greatest of genre films and is all the better for being, fundamentally, a low-key character piece. Ventura is perfect as the world-weary thief who would really rather just settle down and raise his family and he is matched by a young Jean-Paul Belmondo as the stranger who becomes his only real friend and ally. The brilliant black and white cinematography is by Ghislain Cloquet, (it was shot largely on location), and it is beautifully adapted by Sautet, Pascal Jardin and Jose Giovanni from Giovanni's novel.

UNCUT GEMS

The Safdie Brothers have made the best film of the year though you probably won't feel comfortable watching it. Not since the heyday of Robert Altman have so many characters moved so swiftly across the screen, not just talking, but shouting over each other. "Uncut Gems" is an uncut gem of a movie about one of life, and cinema's, greatest losers and it gives Adam Sandler the role of a lifetime. Of course, his performance in "Punch Drunk Love" hinted at just how good Sandler could be but I don't think anyone was quite prepared for this. This is his De Niro/Pacino/Brando moment, you might say all rolled into one and in a year of great performances by male actors, (Driver, Phoenix, Banderas), surely makes him the front runner in the Oscar race.

In this movie Sandler is Howard Ratner, a scummy New York gems dealer with a gambling addiction, a mistress and up to his oxters in debt to some very unsavoury and violent characters but who still believes his fortune is to be made from a rare, African opal that comes his way and which he hopes to sell to the NBA player Kevin Garnett, playing himself. Of course, he may as well believe in fairies for Howard is the kind of man whose days never go right and whose very existence seems as precarious as walking down the middle of a freeway in heavy traffic.

With this film the Safdie Brothers don't deviate too much from the smaller, independent films they've been making up to now. The milieu is the same and so are the characters but this feels more fully formed. This is the mother-lode; this time they've hit pay dirt. With a pulsating Daniel Lopatin score that propels the film along you sweat and squirm with Howard through every terrible, beautiful moment. As well as the agony of watching a man implode before your eyes there's the pleasure of seeing an actor at the very top of his game. The last twenty minutes or so of the film are almost unbearable as Howard puts everything on hold for the gamble of a lifetime. I came away from this movie totally shattered. The Safdies and Sandler have finally arrived.

A RAINY DAY IN NEW YORK

I never thought I'd live to see Timothee Chalamet play Woody Allen but then I realised the young male lead in any Woody Allen film is only a substitute for the character Woody himself would have played 40 or 50 years ago. In fact, every male lead in every Woody Allen picture is Woody whether they are Timothee Chalamet or Joaquin Phoenix or Owen Wilson or anyone else and that every Woody Allen film is just like the one before, particularly if they are good or are comedies like the early funny ones.

"A Rainy Day in New York" is Allen at his slightest and his most incestuous but it is funny and it is charming. The jokes are old-hat but they're funny even if we did hear them as far back as "Manhattan" and Woody can still muster a first-rate cast to deliver his old-hat gags. Chalamet is smart enough to take on the Allen role but imbue it with enough of his own personality to stand out while Ellie Fanning, (channelling her inner Diane Keaton), and Selena Gomez are terrific as the two (young) women in Allen/Chalamet's life. In fact, Allen pops up quite a bit in this film; Jude Law's screenwriter is Allen, Griffin Newman's student filmmaker is Allen and, of course, Liev Schreiber's director is Allen. Oh wait, isn't he Allen's version of Bergman or, at least, Bergman if he were a character in a Woody Allen picture.

Of course, no-one will ever claim "A Rainy Day in New York" as first-rate Allen and while it's funny it's never as funny as those early funny ones but it does look gorgeous, (once again Storaro shot it), the whole cast throw themselves into it shamelessly, (indeed, there was a time before Woody fell out of favour when Fanning might have got an Oscar for Supporting Actress), and Allen completests certainly won't want to miss it.

BURNING

At the centre of Chang-dong Lee's superb movie "Burning" is a triangle of sorts. Jong-su, (Ah-in Yoo), is an unemployed young Korean who wants to be a writer. One day he meets Hoe-mi, (Jong-seo Jun), a girl he knew from school. They have sex and then she goes off to Africa, asking Jong-su to look after her cat until she returns. When she does, she's with Ben, (Steven Yeun), a seemingly rich playboy who just might be a little more dangerous than he looks.

Lee's film is based on Haruki Murakami's short story "Barn Burning" and since Jong-su's favourite author is Faulkner there just might be a clue in the film's title as to Ben's character. It's a long, beautifully detailed slow-burn of a picture, superbly directed and played. Ah-in Yoo displays just the right degree of gaucheness as the film's hapless young hero and Yeun is both suavely sexy and suitably menacing as the mysterious Ben. As much an enigmatic character study, (Ben isn't the only mysterious character on view), as it is a thriller this casts its own very disquieting spell and is certainly a highlight of the new Korean cinema.

YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE

One of Fritz Lang's greatest and grimmest films. He made "You Only Live Once" in 1937. not long after coming to America, and it remains one of the most searing indictments of that country ever put on film. The producer was Walter Wanger who was famous for his 'social conscience' movies and this story of a young criminal unable to go straight because of the way he is treated by society was as bleak as they come. From the beginning you know that the only way it can go is down and that here is a movie that won't have a happy ending. A young Henry Fonda is the criminal in question and Sylvia Sidney, the girl who sticks by him and they are both superb. Bleak, yes but also unforgettable.

MARRIAGE STORY

I always knew Noah Baumbach had it in spades. His first couple of films hinted at it; "The Squid & the Whale" confirmed it and he's never looked back since then. Certainly not as prolific as Woody Allen to whom he's sometimes compared, there's a sadness and depth to his work that only a few Allen pictures captured while at the same time being devastatingly funny and I do think devastating is the most appropriate word for the best of Baumbach.

From "The Squid & the Whale" onwards, everything he's done has been painfully funny but "Marriage Story" is his first masterpiece, (I'm sure there will be others). Apparently autobiographical to a large degree it's a two hour plus dissection of a divorce rather than the marriage that preceded it with nods to both Woody Allen and Ingmar Bergman, most noticeably referenced by a poster for "Scenes from a Marriage", seen early on so as to get it out of the way.



Charlie, (Adam Driver), is a New York Theatre director and Nicole, (Scarlett Johansson), his LA born actress wife who may or may not have given up a lucrative career on the screen to come to New York and act with his mostly experimental theatre group that also includes Wallace Shawn. They have an eight year old son Henry, (an excellent Azhy Robertson), who seems to take their divorce and being shunted from the East to the West Coast with a degree of pragmaticism unusual for a child. Despite tearing emotional strips off each other every now and then Charlie and Nicole still seem to love each other or at least like each other very much and despite divorcing and living on opposite sides of the country they obviously need each other, particularly when there's a power cut.
.

And yes, like all of Baumbach's works this is painfully funny; laugh-out-loud funny several times over but also uncomfortable and even painful to watch on occasion and sometimes moving from one extreme to the other in the same scene. It's beautifully written by the always literate Baumbach and magnificently acted by the entire cast. Driver and Johansson have never been better, (his rendition of Sondheim's 'Being Alive is a killer moment), while Laura Dern and Alan Alda are Oscar worthy as two of their lawyers, (Ray Liotta is also superb as the kind of lawyer who just might have stepped out of "Goodfellas"). It's also great to see "Airplane" actress Julie Hagerty in a role worthy of her as Johansson's ditzy mother.

Baumbach also has great fun contrasting the differing lifestyles of artists in New York, (anal retentive), and LA, (vacuous and rich), while one of the film's running gags is that everyone in LA keeps referring to its biggest selling point as 'the space'. That it ends on a note of optimism is testament to Baumbach's overriding belief in humanity and if he sides with Driver it's probably because Driver is just Baumbach with a pout.

TUCKER; THE MAN AND HIS DREAM

One of Francis Ford Coppola's most underrated films; although a hit at the time, it's now largely been forgotten. A biopic of the maverick American car manufacturer might have seemed like the perfect vehicle, (no pun intended), for Coppola and he didn't disappoint. It's a gorgeously stylish movie, (Storaro was again the DoP), looking just as good as the Tucker Sedan and running just as smoothly and it's splendidly cast.

Jeff Bridges brings just the right degree of boyish charm to his part of the Peter Pan-ish Tucker and Joan Allen is excellent as his ballsy, supportive wife while Martin Landau is Oscar-worthy as the man who helps Tucker secure the funds to build his car. Howard Hughes even puts in an appearance in the unlikely form of Dean Stockwell. Of course, in hindsight you could say the film is as much about Coppola as it is about Tucker and maybe even to a lesser extent about George Lucas who was one of the film's producers. Dreamers all, this is a lovely testament to some very talented men.

THE IRISHMAN

It plays for 209 minutes so yes, it could lose around thirty minutes or so towards the end when the pace noticeably slackens and that' it, really, my only criticism of Martin Scorsese's magnificent new movie "The Irishman", a valentine to De Niro and Pesci, Pacino and Keitel and a homage, not just to his own classic "Goodfellas" but also to The Godfather films and the television series "The Sopranos". In many ways it's like an anthology of gangster movies but not in the way you might expect. Yes, there are a lot of 'hits' on view, (Gangster Movies Greatest Hits?), as De Niro goes around despatching, with a few bullets to the head, not his enemies but those of his associates and employers. He is literally a gun for hire, even when the victim is someone he might really care for. In this respect the movie most closely resembles "Goodfellas" but what really makes this a great film rather than merely a very good one are the conversations. This is a movie full of really good talk delivered by some of the greatest actors alive today. There were times when I was wriggling in my seat out of the sheer pleasure of seeing De Niro sit down with the likes of Al Pacino and Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel and simply talk. Indeed, I could have been doing with more of Keitel whose part is really reduced to just one great scene, but what a scene it is.

Early reports of the film made much of a new digital process whereby the actors appear as their younger selves. To be honest, I found this hardly noticeable particularly where De Niro is concerned. Only Pesci came as something of a shock, (he looks like he's wearing a rubber mask in his early scenes), but then Joe has been absent from our screens for so long now it's difficult to know what exactly he does look like. To find fault with the process is really a minor quibble; it's just a joy to see this cast in the one movie.

De Niro himself is hardly ever off the screen and his performance is certainly one of his finest in a few decades, (I'd long give up hope of ever seeing him in a part this good again). We also owe Mr. Scorsese an unending debt of gratitude in coaxing Joe Pesci out of retirement. This isn't the Joe Pesci of old, the volatile little firecracker from "Goodfellas" but a measured old man who knows all he has to do is raise his little finger, not his voice, to get what he wants. His character here might be what Tommy DeVito would have become had he not been bumped off, resting on his laurels but a killer to the end. He should win the Oscar for this.

Of course, they and others in the cast, are Scorsese regulars. Pacino, on the other hand, is Coppolla's boy and is working with Marty for the first time and initially he seems out of place, like he's drifted in from another movie altogether and what we are getting here is 'Shouty Al', 'Roaring Al', Al at the top of his lungs and his performance is in marked contrast to the subdued work of De Niro, Pesci and Keitel. For a moment I thought he might unbalance the picture until I realised this is just what we needed. His Jimmy Hoffa is an adrenelin shot in the movie. Like his co-stars he is an actor relishing the best role he's had in years and like them he has his own great little moments, (dancing with Anna Paquin as De Niro's estranged daughter we could be watching an ageing Michael Corleone). Of course, even actors this could would be nothing without the benefit of Steven Zaillian's marvellous script or Scorsese's sublime direction. When the film was over I thought no, it's not one of Scorsese's masterpieces, it needs trimming, but twelve hours later I have revised my opinion; warts and all, this is as good as movies get.

THE KING

A very different take on the story of King Henry V from the one we're used to seeing; you know the one a certain Mr Shakspeare has served up. As might be expected from a director who as already given us "Animal Kingdom" and "The Rover" there's a whiff of the gangster to be found here. These are the courts not of the high born but of the common, men who have fought their way to the throne through muddy fields of blood while Michod's vision of medieval Europe seems wholly accurate without being overdone.

Of course, this is a Henry far removed from the nobility of an Olivier or a Branagh. Chalamet's Henry is certainly noble but he's also much more of a pragmatist, prepared to think first and act later, unlike Robert Pattinson's over-the-top and somewhat camp Dauphin; the contrast between them is beautifully delivered. The other main character is, naturally, Falstaff who, in Joel Edgerton's superb performance, is a much more subdued presence than we have seen before. Indeed the acting throughout is outstanding as is the screenplay co-written by Michod and Edgerton, while the Battle of Agincourt is as fierce and as bloody as any battle ever put on film. In an age of Marvel movies "The King" might seem like a fish out of water but it's unquestionably one of the best films of the year.