Just to get the thing out of the way, I have said it before and will say it again:  I like Tom Cruise, actor and film star. I’m going to pass over what I know about Tom Cruise, real life person because it’s not really relevant here. This is all about whether he can still make good films. And on this evidence he certainly can.

So, film starts with The Cruiser being broken out of a Russian prison, then a whole load of nastiness happens in the Kremlin and TC and his team are totally disavowed and have to get themselves out of all types of horrible trouble without any support. Stop the bad guys, clear their names, save the world and get reinstated – just another day at the office, your mission should you choose to accept it.

Cue gadgets, country-hopping and TC doing his own stunts, some of which were really pretty spectacular. I was lucky enough to see this at the IMAX cinema on the South Bank in London and can really recommend watching it on such a big screen – some of the shots are truly breathtaking and vertigo-inducing on occasions. Money has been liberally chucked onto the screen and it shows. And Brad Bird does a fabulous job of directing the whole thing.

The rest of the team is excellent; Simon Pegg is amusing without being at all annoying which is often really difficult in that type of role (he got away with it in Star Trek too, to be fair), Paula Patton is very good indeed and once again Jeremy Renner was great, proving himself to be one to watch (I’ve enjoyed everything I’ve seen him in so far) – he would have been a good replacement for Cruise as was I think the original intention.

As for the star, well, he’s still cool on screen but beginning to look his age (as indeed he should); I love him in this type of role, the big grin was rarely in evidence and he carried off the thoughtful, under-pressure team leader brilliantly. And I have to say that if he has had “work” done it has been really subtle because that was a really big screen and I think we might have noticed a nip or tuck.

So in summary this is a strong action movie which is now on my DVD to buy list.

But not surprisingly what really generated a lot of interest was the six-minute prologue to The Dark Knight Rises which was shown before the main feature and introduced us all to Bane; the sound is as horrible as I had been led to expect but boy, that was some six minutes. Now very excited indeed!

Megamind tells the story of, well, Megamind who arrives on earth as a baby, sadly at the same time as Metro Man, and unable to compete with his stronger, better looking and more popular rival, decides on a career in evil. Until, that is, the day that he wins and with no-one to battle against, realises that he needs to create a new hero.

And of course that’s when it all goes horribly wrong.

This is quite good fun. The voice acting is really good but I found the visuals a little off-putting (I couldn’t get away from the idea that Roxanne, while an excellent leading female character was, well, an odd shape….). My absolutely favourite character was Minion, a great sidekick if ever there was one. The story worked well but you could see where it was going to end up from quite early on, though that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

I just think that, compared to Despicable Me, which I absolutely loved and which we watched again as our New Year’s Eve feel good movie, Megamind seemed slight.

I think we’re talking damned with faint praise here.

But as always with animated films, not being or having a child, I’m probably not the key demographic so can safely be ignored.

Of course I may be taking a slightly jaundiced view because since seeing A Game of Shadows at the cinema I’ve had the great pleasure to watch the first episode of the second series of the BBC modern-day Sherlock which also featured both Irene Adler and Moriarty and was a real gem. But I guess that’s how it goes – the film-watching experience is always affected by what you have seen before or afterwards and this is a Holmes-heavy few weeks.

So getting the nagging stuff out of the way:

• humour was too heavy-handed and slapsticky at time for my taste
• Robert Downey Jr in drag is not something I ever  want to see again
• I love Stephen Fry to bits but not as Mycroft, it seemed a bit of stunt casting
• there wasn’t enough of Noomi Rapace

So shoving all of that to one-side, I thought the story took a while to get going and wasn’t at all clear at first, but then really kicked off and ran full pelt until the end. I thought that the set-pieces were magnificent, the look of the film was great, the little sub-plot with Irene Adler worked well and although I still don’t warm to him Jude Law was very good.

But the standout for me was Jared Harris as Moriarty, he was just magnificently evil and I adored him, not quite to the extent that i actually wanted him to succeed but close enough. The final showdown with Holmes was very well done indeed.

I will be very interested to see where this franchise goes next, assuming that more are going to be made. Don’t be put off by my little doubts, give this one a try as it has much to commend it.

Murder by Decree came out in 1979 at what seems in hindsight to have been the peak of “who was Jack the Ripper?” fever, and stars Christopher Plummer as Holmes and the great James Mason as Watson. It largely follows the theory that there was a masonic conspiracy to protect Jack from being discovered because he was a distinguished surgeon who was acting in the best interests of the UK – I won’t say too much more, but its worth noting that the same theory (using real names) is the basis for the graphic novel and Johnny-Depp-starring From Hell.

I love this film. It’s a bit dated now but I still enjoy it, largely because of Plummer’s portrayal of Holmes, full of sympathy and righteous indignation (and an overly bouffant hair-do, but we’ll skip over that) and the glory that is Mason, all whiskers and silky voice and loyal companionship, urging Holmes to carry a revolver while at the same time deploring his impatience (“squashing a fellow’s pea”). Their partnership is very convincing.

The film is also chock full of stalwart British actors of the period, from Frank Finlay via David Hemmings to John Gielgud, each a delight in their own way. And of course Donald Sutherland’s cameo as a medium, all staring eyes and exotic whiskers, has to be mentioned. And it’s great to see parts of south London as they were before their recent gentrification.

As a story it’s as full of holes as the theory it’s based on but I still think it works for me, mostly because it’s a great opportunity to see Christopher Plummer in his element; he is one of my absolutely favourite actors and a bit underrated in my opinion. This is worth a try if you have an interest in Holmes and/or Jack the Ripper .

Where to start?

A bit of background may be helpful. My husband, the Book God, is a bit of a fan of the old sword and sandal epics that used to star the likes of Steve Reeves and which has its culmination in films such as Ben Hur. If you can add a bit of fantasy and/or mythology into that mix then he is totally, absolutely sold. This led to a bit of a disagreement earlier this year when I stamped my foot and said that although, yes, Jason Momoa was very good in Game of Thrones, there was absolutely no way that I was going to see Conan the Barbarian. And of course gave the BG a bit of moral high ground along the “I went to see Contagion with you, please come and see Immortals with me”

And of course I gave in.

The verdict as shared with friends and colleagues before the writing of this review is that Immortals was far better than it had any right to be. I mean, it’s tosh, the story is all over the place, bits of mythology and other totally-made-up stuff shoved together. Mickey Rourke over-acting as if his life depended on it but managing to do it all with his trademark growl. Lots of violence, some of it quite cruel though I gather there were quite a few cuts to get a certificate in the UK. The villain’s motivation was weak, the romance was obvious and by the numbers. And yet.

And yet.

It was great fun. It looked absolutely gorgeous, really visually arresting which deflected from a lot of the stuff I’ve mentioned above. I can see why Henry Cavill is going to be the next Superman, for the chin alone. Freida Pinto is beautiful, Stephen Dorff amusing and John Hurt shows them all how its done while keeping a straight face. But my favourite was Luke Evans who plays Zeus. In fact all the Greek gods were brilliant, though if I was a Titan I’d be getting myself a new PR guy.

So, not a masterpiece by any means but quite good fun; amusingly the Book God was slightly disappointed whereas I felt that there had been enough to keep me engaged. Fewer half-naked men than 300, much more violence against women, not one to be actively sought out for a re-watch but could see myself getting sucked into watching it if, say, it was 2 in the morning and I couldn’t sleep.

Utter nonsense!

Florence Cathcart has lost her fiance in the war and feels guilt over how they parted. The need for the grieving to make sense of what has happened to them and their huge sense of loss has led many to seek solace in spiritualism, and of course to be taken advantage of by charlatans. Florence has set herself up as a debunker of such hoaxes. She is persuaded to take on the case of the sighting of a small boy at a boarding school in the north, which appears to have led to the death of a young pupil. And that’s probably as much as can be said about the plot without straying into spoiler territory.

There are some really fundamental themes here: loss, loneliness, survivor guilt, repressed memories, the position of women in the inter-war period and the need to make sense of things which seem to have no rational explanation. Florence herself is fascinating – I couldn’t quite decide if her quest to expose spiritualism as a fraud was as much about hoping to be proved wrong as it was about protecting people from the unscrupulous.

It is, to me at least, a wonderfully atmospheric and quite ambiguous film. I had a very interesting exchange with Silvery Dude last week; he had seen this before me and urged me to go along. When we discussed the film a week or so later we discovered an almost diametrically opposite view of some key scenes and the ending in particular, all of which makes me want to see it again just to test my theory (and not at all to prove him wrong, that would be childish *coughs*)

What I can say is that it is really creepy and there were a couple of scenes which really made me jump, all very satisfying. Both Rebecca Hall and Dominic West are excellent, but I really loved Imelda Staunton as the school matron/housekeeper, a wonderful key character.

This would make a good companion piece to The Others which I saw for the first time recently, possibly too much of a sense of foreboding in both to make a sensible double bill but I may give it a try next Hallowe’en.

Recommended to all lovers of the ghostly.

I’m not also that huge a Tintin afficionado; I think I’ve only read one of the books (Tintin in Tibet, probably only because of the Yeti) and my experience had largely been of the Canadian (?) animated series when I was growing up. I was always more of an Asterix the Gaul kind of girl.

So going to see this was largely about keeping the Book God happy  (he is a bit of Tintin completist, though would never admit to it!) But I’m glad I did because it was both very well done and great fun.

So Tintin is wandering through a street market when he spots a magnificent model sailing ship in a glass case which he buys on the spot; and as soon as he has done so he is approached by a variety of unsavoury characters who offer him large sums to take it off his hands. Of course he refuses, and high jinks ensue.

Theft, kidnapping, pickpocketing subplots, searches for hidden treasure, revenge, this has it all delivered at real pace with some fabulous set pieces which probably wouldn’t have been possible in live action even with expensive CGI, so I suppose that’s one chalked up to mo-cap.

I gather the story was changed a wee bit from the books and I know that I missed most of the in-jokes but I really enjoyed this and would happily watch it again.

And the Book God loved it so good result all round.

So we start on Day 2. Gwyneth Paltrow has already got a bit of a nasty cough (in fact that’s the first thing we are aware of, over a black screen)and is on her way home from the far east where she has been on a business trip. She has made a stopover and we see her in the airport eating for her final flight (in more ways than one). Understatement of the year – she doesn’t look at all well, and you begin to be aware of all the people around her, and the things she touches as a matter of course. We see other people, apparently unconnected, falling ill and dying, It isn’t a spoiler to say that Gwyneth dies as well as this happens very quickly (someone on Twitter unkindly said that Gwyneth dying automatically made this a five-star film).

This is when the film really gets going as the scientists work around the clock to identify, contain and find a vaccine for this flu-type illness. Lots of people fall along the way before there is ultimately a resolution.

I was going to say that the scientists race to find a solution but that would be misleading, for this is not a film to see if you are looking for heaps of action. Its quiet and has a stately pace which has been off-putting to some. I even got into a Twitter exchange with Jonathan Ross (@wossy) over whether dull was the better word (he was generally disappointed with the film). But I found all the science stuff totally absorbing and in particular it was heartening to see how many of the scientists were women.

It was also good to see Matt Damon put in another one of his everyman performances as Gwyneth’s husband, trying to come to terms with his loss; because of the need to track where the illness originated from and how it was spread personal questions are asked which leads him to find out things about his wife which he didn’t know.

And Jude Law produces another one of his shady/creepy characters.

I liked the structure, with the disease already well under way when the film starts, although I was pleased to see that we got the full story of Day 1 at the end. I really enjoyed it. I’m not sure that it’s a film I would deliberately revisit, but its the type of movie that, if I came across it on TV I would watch to the end. The implications are frightening but it isn’t handled in a flashy or glib way.

This was my final watch for RIP VI.

But this year Carl cleverly included a movie watching peril for his RIP VI challenge and I created myself a little list, of which this and The Nightmare Before Christmas (which I won’t review because I watch it at least once every year) were the only ones I got around to watching; go figure.

As this is a psychological creepy film I am going to try very hard to talk about it without giving away any spoilers; this may be difficult but I will do my best.

So The Others has Nicole Kidman apparently abandoned by her staff in her stately home on an island previously occupied during the Second World War, waiting with her two young children for her husband to return from the fighting. Three mysterious new servants turn up and we begin to see how odd the household actually is – the children are apparently incredibly sensitive to light and so doors are kept  locked and unlocked as people move through the house and the curtains kept drawn and windows shuttered to protect them from the outside world.

And that’s when all the strange occurrences begin. Noises. Presences. You get the picture.

This is a really effective and atmospheric chiller. The sense of isolation is constantly reinforced by the fog which occasionally surrounds the house, and the small community goes through its daily routine without any visits from the outside world. Well, not many anyway.

I was very impressed with the performances, especially from Nicole Kidman who is an actress I can take or leave; when she’s good she’s brilliant (as here) but I’ve often been underwhelmed by her choice of projects. The two children are very good indeed, and it’s always lovely to see Eric Sykes on good form. But my favourite has to be Fionnula Flanagan who is simply wonderful as the housekeeper who knows more than she is willing to share.

I’ll have to confess that I knew the outcome of the story in advance (it is a film that has been kicking around for quite a while after all) and as with Fight Club it’s difficult to now what I might have thought of the film without this background. But I didn’t know exactly how it was all going to work out, and there was still a huge amount to enjoy, so still a great experience.

This is a film I know I will go back to in future. A good watch for RIP.

So between 1 November 2011 and 30 January 2013 I have to try to watch the following – and this is the order in which  I’ve been instructed to watch them, a celluloid compilation tape if you will:

1. The Last Samurai* – starring The Cruiser (my guilty pleasure)
2. Breaking Away* – cycling
3. Night on Earth - taxis
4. True Romance - Cage & Arquette
5. American Beauty* – a classic which I’m ashamed not to have seen
6. Big Fish* – Tim Burton, yay
7. Cinema Paradiso - oh dear, another hanging one’s head situation
8. Ferris Bueller’s Day Off - ditto, but for different reasons
9. Cars* – not sure why I haven’t watched this, the only Pixar not viewed so far
10. The Transporter - Jason Statham!
11. Crash* – not the Cronenberg one (which I saw largely because the Daily Mail told me I shouldn’t, this is the one that stopped two films I liked from winning an Oscar)
12. Unforgiven* -the Book God will be pleased
13. The Big Lebowski - no excuses for this one
14. I’ve Loved You So Long* – the lovely Kristen
15. Les amants du Pont-Neuf* – romantic, apparently
16. King Lear - the Laurence Olivier one
17. Merry Christmas Mister Lawrence - Bowie
18. Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy - I’ve avoided this because I have the books, records, radio shows and fondly remember the TV series

Those with asterisks are films I already have in my possession but just haven’t got around to watching yet.