The Coen brothers make fine movies. I am a fan of some of their intricate film noirs, as well as their somewhat surreal comedies. Their plots are well thought-out and the characterisation often brilliant. Somewhat sadly, I can recite quite a lot of the Big Lebowski, although, this will never match my knowledge of Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

I knew that No Country For Old Men would be a return to their dark side. Their first film Blood Simple was also set in Texas, where the wild desert vistas mirror the ruthless lifestyles of the leading characters. The Coens have a fondness for thrusting a harmless underdog into a precarious situation involving money, criminals, violence and, in this case, a vicious psychopath.

By the cut of his hair alone you can tell that Anton Chigurh, played by Javier Bardem will turn out to be a disturbing character. And adding to his menace is the fact that he kills his victims with an air cattle gun. Bardem is one of those European actors, like Jurgen Prochnow, who are able to unsettle by understatement.

Josh Brolin, meanwhile, is a powerful, sympathetic presence as unlucky Vietnam veteran Llewelyn Moss who puts up a noble fight against an unrelenting foe. Then there’s Tommy Lee Jones who, as Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, is as rugged and off the wall as ever and seems to blend in chameleon-like into the harsh Texas countryside. While the Sheriff impotently muses over his life and work, a tortuous battle ensues for ownership of the $2 million dollars that Llewelyn Moss finds at the scene of a drug deal gone wrong.

Although there is the trademark Coen humour, in this film it is as fleeting as tumbleweed. Suspense, too, is sometimes lacking, despite the sometimes horrific events that unfold.

That aside, I would certainly recommend No Country For Old Men to anyone, as I see it as yet another triumph from the Coen brothers.

Expect nothing from this comedy and there are a few surprising hilarious moments. However, I would say ‘balls’ to it being a work of comic genius from director Robert Ben Garant who is the co-writer with Thomas Lennon (also starring as Karl Wolfschtagg).

Dan Fogler is worth watching as Randy Daytona, a child ping-pong prodigy; having lost a tournament to an embarrassing cliché of a German opponent back in the 80s is making a living doing ping-pong tricks for a cheap variety show. His body shape alone can generate laughter and he uses this to great effect as he resembles a slightly bigger Danny Devito with a lot more hair. His clownish antics are at times quite absorbing and it is the slapstick more than anything that provides the most laughs. When Randy is picked by an FBI agent to go under cover at an illicit ping-pong match run by Feng (Christopher Walken), he has to get up to ping-pong standard with the help of Master Wong (James Hong) and his niece Maggie (Maggie Q).

Walken, after his recent performance in Hair Spray, seems to have lost his lustre and his style is rather limp and a little out of condition here. It’s not his fault; the baddie Feng is a hardly a well drawn character to begin with and Walken ends up looking like a sad pantomime dame on screen. Perhaps Walken should avoid comedies altogether. I would be interested to know what any other Walken fans have to say about this.

The script can hardly provide any memorable quotes except for one that will always stick in my mind: ‘It is better to die like a tiger than live like a pussy’. I’ll try that one out as a piece of Confucian wisdom to impress my friends. There is also novelty in a spoof bringing together the unusual elements of ping-pong and martial arts but it is overall too reliant on formulae and just, well, silly most of the time. It’s not bad for dumbed-down American comedy though.

My advice is to wait until it comes out on DVD, sit back, suspend all disbelief and just let yourself go with the flow of it, but, whatever you do, don’t start to think about it or you are lost.

‘They f**k you up your mum and Dad, they may not mean to but they do’ This is the first line of a Philip Larkin poem and relates very well to the film ‘Into the Wild’. It is the touching story of a young man who decides to give up his promising socialite future and escape from his upbringing, after graduating university, for a life on the road as a vagabond traveler.

This is another film I have seen recently that has stunning cinematography. In fact, it is the cinematography, which held my attention all the way through because at times the complexities of the how the film is put together to convey the story of what shapes Christopher McCandless’s (Emile Hirsch) life could have stopped it in its tracks with less intelligent editing. It is actually a tribute to the director, Sean Penn, who is one of the most thought provoking actors I have seen and has also shown he is the same as a director. I am now haunted by breathtaking images of the American wilderness: scenes of the scorched parched desert cut to the sterile beauty of the Alaskan mountains as if we are flicking through a family album. It is difficult to keep up with the jumps between the past and present of McCandless’s life, especially, as much use is made of split-screen filming.

The story itself is one of subtle tragic irony. McCandless, aka Alex Supertramp is a vulnerable, clever and gentle dreamer who turns his back on humanity to seek happiness in the romantic images of nature he has glimpsed from books. The romance of nature quickly turns into the harsh, unsympathetic reality that it is. Instead of putting his talents and intelligence to good use, for example, by volunteering in Africa, he rebels against the pressures of his middle class upbringing by running away from his family and responsibility. The film does not turn McCandless into a heroic figure but slowly reveals him as someone who is on a painful mission to find himself and, thus, one who loses his way in the process. He becomes blinded by his pain when what he really seeks is with those people he meets on his journey. At the same time, it details the destruction his self-absorbed actions cause his family who are left behind to suffer his loss.

This is a lengthy, artistic film and requires endurance but it pays off in the end because of its sheer emotive content. It has more in common with European cinema rather than the fast and furious tendencies of American mainstream movies to shock or disturb. Prepare to be truly stirred from your own depths rather than shaken by this one.

A while ago I saw a film about blood sucking night creatures called 30 Days Of Night and was, overall, not too impressed. ‘I Am Legend’ has a similar theme, but contains all the ingredients lacking in 30 Days Of Night. It is one of the most terrifying films I have seen since the Blair Witch Project.

This re-working of Richard Matheson’s classic vampire story of the same name makes for uncomfortable viewing. The CGI is impressive and much attention to detail has been given to creating the desolate wasteland of New York post-viral attack.

Robert Neville (Will Smith) is the only man alive in this feral city and - with his beloved companion Sam, a beautiful German Shepherd - is the sole focus of the action for much of the film. There is never a dull moment as Smith and canine share moments of companionship while playing golf from an abandoned aircraft carrier or hunting the errant deer zig zagging in between the deserted cars in the streets.

The story is pieced together bit by bit and the editing is well done as the viewer learns of the events leading up to Neville’s predicament through his subjective view point. The series of flash backs add to the suspense and are interspersed with scenes of Neville living a precarious existence; we see him curled up in his own bath with Sam and a machine gun at the ready as strange screeches and howls echo in the night. The scenes of gore are minimal and are not the focus of the film, whereas 30 Days Of Night relied on blood lust to carry the suspense.

‘I Am Legend’ has an economical script and is not great on depth, but it is poignant and emotive as the viewer witnesses Neville facing an overwhelming foe. There is no hint of garlic to over spice this film with unbelievable monsters; the fact that these creatures are the creation of humanity itself only adds to the sense of terror.

I am not sure Will Smith is best cast to cope with the depth of the characterization, but he holds his own alone on screen for the most part and his humour provides respite from the terror. The ending is a bit disappointing, but considering how well the film has been crafted, it hardly matters.

This is one of this year’s most anticipated films and I was prepared to be dazzled and mesmerized by it. The reality did not quite match my great expectations, even though I did make an allowance for the fact that I was an adult going to see a film for children.

It is a spectacular film. An alternative reality is brought to life with impeccable CGI and a fine eye for detail. From the bustling Dickensian style of London and Oxford to the desolate and fantastical charm of the kingdoms of the frozen north; the sweeping panoramas of these landscapes alone are worth a visit to the big screen.

However, although it certainly looks good, there was little suspense in the film. Nicole Kidman (Mrs Coulter) was about as animated as a wooden puppet and it was the unpretentious talent of Dakota Blue Richards as Lyra Belacqua, who kept the film going.

She is a spirited and delightful Lyra, and I am not just saying that because she is a young Brightonian. A host of well known actors or their voices feature in this film, although I cannot say their performances were Oscar winners. However, Sam Elliott, is as quirky as ever and does a reasonable job of the American Aeronaught Lee Scoresby.

It could be the script. Perhaps 113 minutes is simply too short to encompass the range and intricacies of the book. It is not a bad film, but its lack of dramatic tension was what really disappointed me. Even the fight scene between the two warrior ice bears Iorek Byrnison (Ian McKellan’s voice) and Ragnar Sturlusson (Ian McShane’s voice) is a let-down and I missed the violent and shocking finale because I blinked and it was all over.

Nevetheless, I am anxious to hear the opinion of my two young nieces, Aimee and Zoe, who have yet to see the film because perhaps as an adult I am unable to fully appreciate the wonder and magic of the story. I would also be interested to hear from others who have read the books how they would rate the film.

I had my reservations about going to see Zack Snyder’s 300 when it came out because of its creative use of CGI to interpret an historical epic but I was awestruck by its beauty and consider it a truly artistic masterpiece in contemporary film making. However, I am not sure I can say the same about Beowulf.

I enjoyed the film. The story is fascinating and there are moments of charm and well edited light-heartedness, which are very well done and do not veer off into farce. There is a dark and threatening background to the action in the form of impeccable CGI, but there were times when I felt the urge to reach forward to pick up my joystick and start controlling Beowulf’s movements for myself. Whereas 300 is artistic with CGI, Beowulf is a little too literal, which gives it the semblance of a computer game. Perhaps, that is the target audience for this film? It could be a literature lesson for young gamers who would never pick up a book as a substitute to their joysticks.

It is very difficult for me to comment on the performances of the actors - their CGI selves are generally recognisable, except in the case of Ray Winstone as Beowulf, who is distinguishable mainly by his London accent: ‘I have come to kill your Monsta,’ had a few people laughing in the seats behind me. My friend admitted he fell asleep during the film, so I guess his comment would be that he was not too impressed with it.

It does still manage to do a good job of conveying the vulnerabilities of mankind that are overcome in the end by strengths and in Beowulf we have a sympathetic hero who, with his flaws, is all the more heroic because of having to fight his own internal demons as well as those without.

Having never read Beowulf, I cannot say whether the film does justice to it. Although I found it entertaining it certainly did not thrill me to the marrow of my bones. I heard someone comment somewhere that the characters’ eyes were ‘soul-less’, so maybe that is something to think about if the future of cinema is complete CGI.