Michael Clayton (George Clooney) works for a high-powered law firm as a ‘fixer’. Where there’s trouble, Clayton is the man they send to sort out the mess. When old friend and top attorney Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) suffers a mental breakdown, Clayton is immediately dispatched. The protracted case Edens has been involved in, defending one of the firm’s biggest clients, makes Clayton reassess his principles and life as he comes across high-level corruption.

I quite like the way this movie doesn’t serve everything to the audience on a platter. Not much of the story is given over without a bit of thought involved. But, having said that the opening thirty minutes or so can leave you wondering just what it is that you’re supposed to be focusing on. It’s almost as if director Tony Gilroy is being deliberately obscure.

Michael Clayton is billed as a thriller but I don’t think it quite hits the mark. It’s a slow paced movie that doesn’t really build up a sense of drama or suspense; certainly you’re not on the edge of your seat from a constant thrill ride. It just plays out the story without resorting to mindless plot twists or unnecessary action scenes. There is a sense that this is a real story being told to the audience, which is a credit to Gilroy’s direction and script.

The acting is superb, Tilda Swinton won the Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role Oscar, and rightly so. She portrays Karen Crowder, a somewhat naïve corporate high-flyer who is willing to sell her soul to the company at any price. Tom Wilkinson is brilliant as the crazed and driven Edens. And, it was nice to see Clooney being able to shed his star charisma for a role that gave him the chance to act out a guy who is not that likeable.

The only problem is that the movie makes you engage your brain in the first half an hour, and because you’re not letting the story wash over you, you being to question some of what’s being portrayed. At least that’s how it was with me. We’re shown how ruthless and efficient a couple of murdering thugs can be, but for their next hit they choose the most over the top way to dispose of their target. Then, it seemed odd that for such a smart and savvy lawyer Clayton would think he would be able to fool a police forensic team in an absurd way.

I guess my biggest gripe with the story is that it’s a moral tale. We’re supposed to leave thinking that corruption is bad and money should not motivate us to do the wrong thing. But the movie never gives us the example that’s needed. There is a scene where Clayton is literally weighing up his options in both hands, but he ends up taking both! He doesn’t actually make the moral decision, he just cleans the board with everything on offer.

In the end I think it was a little slow paced for my tastes and almost too obscure at times. I could have done with more tension and thrills along the way. It’s definitely worth watching for the performances of Swinton and Wilkinson, but I think it missed the chance to be compelling.

Ah, Sweeney Todd, the demon barber of Fleet street. The tale of Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp), unjustly exiled for a crime he did not commit, who returns anew to seek revenge on the judge who stole his family. With the help of Mrs Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter) Todd takes to his old job with relish, guaranteeing his customers a closer shave than they’ve ever had before.

Director Tim Burton has already proven a talent for creating gothic worlds, but with this film I think he’s outdone himself. Old London town has never been so ghoulishly gruesome as through Burton’s eyes. The opening sequence brilliantly drops you into a world that’s dark and somber. A world were the likes of Sweeney Todd’s style of hairdressing and Mrs Lovett’s meat pie shop would surely flourish.

This version of Todd’s tale is an adaptation of Stephen Sondheim and Hugh Wheeler’s stage musical. Unfortunately, I’m not a big fan of musicals. If this hadn’t been directed by Burton I probably would have given it a miss. Still, every time one of the actors took a deep breath before bursting into song I tried not to follow suit. And, to be fair there are some fine numbers that I enjoyed. There were inevitably, a fair few where I just glazed over and looked at the scenery instead.

The acting doesn’t miss a step all the way through. Depp and Bonham Carter are perfect as the two lead characters, and they are more than ably matched by the supporting cast. Alan Rickman does an nicely understated Judge Turpin and Timothy Spall is truly odious as his sidekick Beadle, but it’s Edward Sanders who really is outstanding as the young gin drinking Toby.

The only thing I would say is if you’re not a fan of core I would probably give the second half of the movie a miss. Burton teases out a nightmare of blood as Todd’s blades begin to cut deeper, and the sickly red is a vivid contrast to the dark backdrop. After a couple of decades of desensitization, it’s probably a good thing that I can still be shocked by watching such graphic violence on the big screen .

After watching the movie I can’t imagine it being made without Burton’s hand in the mix. He has produced another gothic nightmare that shocks and twists nicely. I just wish it wasn’t a musical! Not for the faint hearted or squeamish, but a lot of fun and hugely enjoyable. Forget the popcorn and eat a meat pie instead.

In the outback of Texas Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) stumbles across a drug exchange that has gone violently wrong. Amongst the dead bodies he comes across a trailer full of heroin and an unclaimed two million dollars. The opportunity to take the money is too compelling. Unfortunately on his trail is psychopathic killer, Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), who relentlessly pursues his quarry and the money. Looking on is Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) who struggles to comprehend the violence that ensues.

I should start out by saying that I’m a huge Coen Brothers fan. I still go around looking for an excuse to quote Tim Robbins’ character in The Hudsucker Proxy “You know, for kids”. Which is quite sad considering that movie came out over a decade ago and I now get the kind of blank looks that Norville Banes used to get.

So, it might come as a bit of surprise that I don’t think No Country for Old Men is the masterpiece that everyone seems to say it is. Now, don’t misunderstand. It’s superbly shot - the use of Texan landscapes is magnificent. The acting is brilliant from start to finish which is incredible considering the amount of dialogue there is in the movie. You would think at some point the actors would start looking sheepish at the having to portray so much without words.

It’s hard not to appreciate the struggle of hair that Javier Bardem overcame to make his character ruthlessly evil and not at all comical. Josh Brolin was excellent as the man pursued. It was also nice to see Kelly Macdonald getting a good Hollywood part. She’s probably still mainly known for Trainspotting but this should lead to some more meaty roles.

I know the whole point of the film is to look at the violence and not the crime itself but I’m not sure it works. I’ve not read the Cormac McCarthy novel but I’ve heard the Coen brothers didn’t stray far with their screenplay. The book may pull it off but I don’t think the film does. The man whose eyes we’re supposed to be looking through is a peripheral character. Although I can appreciate his shock and despair at the sheer violence he sees, it’s hard for his view to have any weight in the film. For me, he didn’t have the onscreen presence to make the incredibly abrupt ending work.

What really happens is the audience invests a lot of time with a psychopathic killer pursuing his prey but don’t get paid off with a climax. When a movie finishes there should be an overall feeling that you’ve been touched by what you’ve seen. No Country for Old Men just sort of glides off the screen and I was left feeling cheated somehow.

Technically and artistically it’s a brilliant movie up to the point where Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) pops up for a few laughs and then it seems to lose focus. By the time the end came I really didn’t care about any of the characters. Who lived, who died seemed irrelevant and Chigurh’s coin flipping was left meaningless.

It’s definitely worth a watch and I’m sure it will cause all sorts of debate. Unfortunately I just can’t get on the masterpiece bandwagon. Even though I think it’s well done, ultimately I just didn’t find it the story that engaging.

American Gangster is based on the real life story of Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington), the number one importer of heroin into Harlem in the 1970s. Frank decides the best way to make a profit is to get rid of the middle man and deal direct with the source in South East Asia. The film follows Lucas’ rise in the underworld and the attempts of Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe) to break his hold on New York.

Ridley Scott proves again that he’s a fine director no matter what period he chooses. It’s shot uncompromisingly and leaves no doubt to the kind of damage that can be done by heroin. He doesn’t lose control over a mammoth cast and keeps the focus on Lucas and Roberts with a steady eye. Washington and Crowe are pitted against each other extremely well without either really getting the upper hand.

There’s no doubting the 1970s America that’s shown in this movie. There is a real sense that New York continues on either side of the camera and we’re being treated to a snapshot. Partly that comes down to the set design but also costume designer Janty Yates (who one an Oscar with Gladiator) turns out another fine piece of work.

I thought Josh Brolin pulled out another good piece of acting as the crooked cop, Trupo. Add this to his performance in No Country for Old Men and he seems to be hitting the right notes. It’ll be interesting to see how he does as George W. Bush in Oliver Stone’s ‘W’.

As far as the story goes there was a sense that I’d seen it all before. The crooked cops, the valiant do-gooder, the violent king-pin. It might be a hangover from Washington’s role in Training Day or that there isn’t really a spectacular scene. There’s nothing wrong with a solid piece of story telling but I think this film needed something to jolt the audience out of their seats.

I definitely found myself flagging somewhere around the 2 hour mark. It’s not so much that I was losing interest but once it became apparent where the story was going there wasn’t enough substance to make me want to stick around. It’s a shame but I came away feeling that it was just a little bit too long.

There is an alternative ending that comes with the DVD but it’s nothing to get excited about – it’s an extra five minutes that was rightly left out of the cinematic release. With the normal version at over 2 and a half hours I didn’t try and track down the extra 18 minutes of footage in the extended version.

There are and will be better gangster movies than this but it’s certainly entertaining enough if you have longer legs that me. I don’t know how accurate the real life story is portrayed but it is a well worked flashback to the 1970s.