Welcome to the sickest film of the year. A film so mad it was not submitted to the MPAA for a rating in the US, and which upset critic Roger Ebert so much he refused to give it a star. Blimey.

If you’re expecting something as profoundly disturbing as The Exorcist, or a gore-fest like The Evil Dead, you’re going to be disappointed. It’s really the idea of the film which is at the centre of its horror, rather than any explicit gore. Set in the classic house in the woods scenario it centres around a surgeon, Doctor Heiter, who is the world’s leading expert on separating Siamese twins.

He is also, as one look at his face will tell you, completely insane. His private obsession is not separating people but joining them together, connecting their digestive tracts to form a human centipede. He has already tested it out on his beloved dogs, who are now buried at the bottom of his garden – time to move on to humans.

In classic horror fashion two young American tourists are driving through the woods when they get a flat tyre during a storm. The nearest house happens to be Doctor Heiter, who drugs them and keeps them in the cellar. After disposing of an unfortunate truck driver – no tissue match – he then kidnaps a Japanese man, performs his operation and stitches the three victims together. However, when the police come sniffing around, surely the game is up.

It’s a classic gore tale using every cliché with a glint in its eye, but ultimately the film goes down a cul-de-sac and has no way out. Clearly Doctor Heiter is insane – early on, he declares “I don’t like humans”, but what exactly is the point of his bonkers experiment? What exactly will it achieve? Equally clearly, his victims can’t survive for long, so what will happen?

When the Oscar nominations were released early this year, the fight for the coveted Foreign Language Oscar looked a straight one between Michael Haneke’s cool, austere White Ribbon and Jacques Audiard’s brilliant prison drama A Prophet, with possibly Israel’s Ajami an outsider. Then the Academy shocked everyone by picking Secrets In Their Eyes, an Argentinian film that seemed to come out of nowhere. To the Academy’s enormous credit, they got it right – Secrets is a brilliant drama, and has something in spades the other films perhaps lack – passion.

It’s a revenge drama but a long way from Dirty Harry territory. It follows a federal justice agent, Benjamin (Darin), who has retired. He is keeping busy by writing his novel, but the book is actually his way of exorcising the demons of a 25-year-old old case, the brutal rape and murder of a young bride. He and his partner Pablo (the brilliant Guillermo Francella), now a sad drunk, believe the killer was a man called Gomez, but all they have to go on is a pile of Gomez’ letters. They don’t even know if he is still alive.

Also thrown into the mix is the new head of the legal department, Irene Menéndez-Hastings, who worked on the case and whom Benjamin fell in love with. She never returned his feelings but he still carries a torch for her, and inserts a scene in his book where they have a romantic encounter at a train station.

Slowly Benjamin and Pablo close in on the killer, but when they see the effect the murder has had on the woman’s still-grieving husband, they begin to wonder whether they are doing the right thing. Pablo though is certain they will catch him, as the one thing that never changes is a man’s passion – that sentiment reverberates through the whole film like an echo.

Pablo realises that the names that keep cropping up in the suspect’s letters are footballers, and that he is a Racing Club fan. They go to matches, spot him among the crowd and chase him around the stadium, in the film’s one real tour de force of camerawork. Eventually it is Irene who breaks the suspect down and makes him confess to the crime. However, barely a year later Gomez is released to work as a hitman for the far-right Peronist party, so justice has failed and the characters are all defeated – or are they?

We fast-forward back to the opening of the film, in which Benjamin presents his novel to Irene and the old emotions are stirred up again. How will she, now a mother of two and a successful judge, respond to this dredging up of the past? And how will they rest until justice is done?

Secrets weaves several themes into a gripping drama – it’s a revenge tragedy, a legal argument and political tract, but at its heart it is simply about human passion. How can a man recover from losing his wife? How can a man love a woman for 25 years knowing she is married to someone else? The film takes its time to slowly reveal how each character manages to get through their lives carrying all of these burdens, but there are short bursts of violence or anger to keep the tension up.

The acting is utterly compelling throughout – Argentinian cinema is not one of my expert areas, yet it is clear that they have some seriously heavyweight talent. Darin is simply brilliant as the tortured, desperate Darin, trying to scratch a 25-year-old itch and put his mind at ease, and Villamil is stunning as Irene, the object of his desire. The film is almost stolen though by Francella as Pablo, Darin’s seemingly hopeless drunk of a sidekick who can just about remember how to be a detective, and whose work gets them back on the track of the killer.

Overall verdict: Blisteringly passionate revenge drama with superb performances and a dark secret at its heart, which thoroughly deserved its Oscar. An absolute must-see.

Reviewer: Mike Martin

Christ, I’m old. Ok, I’m not that old at all, 26 this week in fact, a number that would make most people even in their 30s weep a tiny tear of nostalgia. I’m in the prime of my life, but there’s nothing to make you feel like a wizened old git, waiting for the cold hand of death to appear, quite like watching a kid’s action movie.
 
The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is a tale just begging to be given a glossy makeover. Geeky awkward science nerd finds out he has magical powers and proceeds to use them to fight evil, accomplish menial tasks in unfeasibly awesome ways and obtain a girlfriend several kilometres out of his league. Shallow and slightly contrived? Oh yes. Does its target audience care? Hell no.
 
In the titular role we have Jay Baruchel, famed previously for out-and-out adult comedies like Knocked Up and Tropic Thunder, but perfectly cast here as endearing idiot Dave. The character’s Stan-Laurel-meets-Woody-Allen “Aaaawww jeez” shtick isn’t exactly a stretch for Baruchel, but the relative newcomer is carving out an impressive career for himself by being impossible to hate. The same tricks that turned this year’s She’s Out Of My League from mediocre rom-com to surprisingly good rom-com work here too and mean that the film doesn’t get dragged down by a smug, fast-talking lead.
 
The big draw, however, is always going to be good ol’ Nick Cage. Fresh of the slightly strange “Was it great? Was it awful?” Bad Lieutenant, he’s on slightly more stable ground as the ageless wizard Balthazar, Dave’s mentor. Again, nothing about the character makes for anything other than a mild exertion of Cage’s acting muscles but, unlike previous effects-heavy flops such as Ghost Rider, Next and Knowing, in which he seemed fairly blasé about playing second fiddle to the CGI, here, under good direction from John Turtletaub, he succeeds in bringing in a human element, which creates a stable framework from which the more hyperactive elements can flow freely.

As you’d expect from Disney and Bruckheimer, the CGI behind The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is marvellous, a pleasing combination of epic combat and less predictable moments, my particular highlight being a magic tinged car chase across Manhattan. Unfortunately, that’s really all there is to this film. Turtletaub glosses up the production to a beautiful shine, but forgets to put anything substantial within the piece. Messages about being a teen outcast and falling in love young are present, but mostly drowned out by the visual cacophony of the film’s magical focus.

So, back to my initial point then. I was all set to give this film a bit of a kicking. It’s a shallow, cliché-ridden action comedy straight out of the Hollywood cookie-cutter. The special effect sequences are excellent, but they’re devoid of any kind of soul or memorable spark. Then after the end credits rolled, I walked out into the cinema foyer and saw a bunch of kids who’d sat a couple of rows behind me, leaping around, making whooshing exploding noises and pretending to throw plasma bolts at each other and I realised, that if a film could provoke that, I’d rather missed the point.

Now don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying I’m wrong. I’m a critic, and therefore am never wrong, not ever. I am however, a jaded, slightly cynical empty shell of a man who wouldn’t recognise the simple joy of youth if it struck him sharply in the face with a shovel. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice still has all those terrible qualities I mentioned previously, but all your average 10 year old needs is an engaging storyline and some epic CG, both of which this movie has in spades.
 
Overall Verdict: For the young, undemanding viewer, a treat of great special effects and simple empathetic characters. Everyone else however, will struggle to find much worthwhile in this very much by-the-numbers action comedy.

Reviewer: Alex Hall

“You’re a bender, and you’ll always be a bender”, says one character in the Last Airbender. Yep, it’s time for the worst-reviewed film of the year, with some of the most laugh-out-loud dialogue of the decade. Yet, for all of its flaws – of which there are many – The Last Airbender is not in fact the worst film of the year. It’s no good, but not the complete disaster many would have you to believe – for that look no further than Knight And Day.

M Night Shyamalan has track record that is definitely heading south fast, but even The Happening had a germ of an idea in there, it was the poor execution which let it down. The Last Airbender suffers from similar problems – there is a mildly entertaining theme in there somewhere, buried under some poor special effects, wooden acting and of course that terrible dialogue, with a stubborn resistance to change the title. Any film that insists on using the word ‘benders’ so consistently deserves every schoolboy smirk it gets.

The world is divided into four elements, but the fire benders – stop laughing at the back – have decided to go it alone to achieve world domination, led by Prince Zuko (Dev Patel of Slumdog fame). The only man who can stop them is an Avatar – oh gawd – who turns out to be a cryogenically frozen boy who has been asleep for 100 years, and discovers all of his fellow monks have been slain. He teams up with the locals from a small Eskimo tribe to fight the mighty fire warriors. Or something like that.

The film is based on a popular children’s animated series, and if taken in that spirit it spins a story well enough for about an hour. Shyamalan has absolutely no idea how to direct actors – he gets stilted performances out of all of his leads – and here, with a cast of basically kids, is no exception. He also is the most humourless man on planet earth, the ‘jokes’ here are teeth-grindingly bad. The visuals too are dull, the colour turned down by the absurd current obsession with 3D, which adds little to the film. And yet, and yet, and yet…there are a few decent kung-fu fights, a couple of nice moments, and the story does sort of work itself out in the end. Patel, who charmed us all in Slumdog, still looks like a sixth form student, but he does his best as the evil fire warrior, and his steam-powered ship is a thing of gothic beauty. He actually isn’t on screen for that long, so no blame can be attached to him.

Visually and thematically the film bears a striking resemblance to The Golden Compass, another film made from a children’s source featuring lots of snow-bound exteriors, giant woolly animals and lots of fights with bizarre weapons. At least here the giant animal doesn’t talk like Ian McKellen. Compass was a box-office disaster as well, but nowhere near as bad as many thought and wrote at the time. This is not as good as Compass – take that any way you want – and will probably flop on a similar level. Taken on a certain level though it’s reasonably well made kids’ entertainment. Who knows though, it may just be the film that wears out everybody’s patience with Shyamalan.

Overall verdict: The film was critically mauled in the US for completely understandable reasons, but which has glimpses of charm and visual sweep buried under some awful dialogue and wooden performances.

Reviewer: Mike Martin

It would be too simplistic to describe this award-winning drama as the ‘Peruvian Brokeback Mountain’. It certainly covers similar themes and territory, a man trying to come to terms with being happily married with a child, but who also has a secret gay life, which has serious consequences. Undertow though uses very different methods to tell its story, and is utterly compelling throughout.

Set in a tiny coastal village in Peru, it has three main characters. Miguel (Mercado) is a hard-working fisherman. He’s popular, a member of the local footy team, and looking after his pretty wife Mariela (Astengo), who is heavily pregnant with their first child. He also has another side however, as he is involved in a passionate affair with local painter Santiago (Cardona). Miguel wants to keep the two sides of his life separate, Santiago begins to demand more of him, even trying to befriend Mariela at a local market.

Just when the story appears to have played itself out the film takes a huge turn – Santiago is mysteriously drowned, apparently dragged under by the undertow of the title. Miguel is stricken with grief, so much so that Santiago starts appearing to him, and they carry on their argument about happiness and giving. Santiago’s ghost demands that Miguel finds his body and buries him properly, Miguel is so in denial he follows another path.

Just as it all starts to go a bit Ghost, the story takes yet another left turn, as local gossips start to reveal Miguel’s affair. When this reaches Mariela she faces a decision, whether to leave Miguel or stay for the sake of their baby. Miguel meanwhile is still denying the rumours, but Santiago’s ghost won’t rest until he does the right thing.

The amazing thing about Undertow is the way it uses techniques we’ve seen a hundred times before – I see dead people – but weaves them in an intricate pattern to create something fresh, complex and gripping. It never makes assumptions about characters, using its tiny seaside setting and isolated community in such a clever way. The villagers are traditional and disapproving of homosexuality, yet they are also capable of forgiveness and of recognising the importance of respecting others.

The three lead characters give tremendous performances, very real, honest and passionate, with Astengo’s Mariela particularly strong. She goes from feeling loved to betrayed to angry to compassionate without missing a beat, and in one scene where she defends her husband to the local gossips she is as strong as a lion. The two men too are equally fine, especially Cardona’s Santiago as the spurned lover who also has to deal with hostility from the locals.

It’s the debut film from the director, and we can only hope he keeps up this standard. He is helped by his extraordinary setting, the little fishing village looking like a Salvador Dali painting and his cinematographer never goes for the pretty, preferring the surreal every time. Some of the sunsets and wind-swept beaches are breathtaking.

Overall verdict: Absorbing drama about complex issues of sexuality and identity, beautifully played and strikingly shot. A treat, and deserves more than to be filed under ‘gay cinema’.

Reviewer: Mike Martin

Memo to Tom Cruise: the 80s are over. The decade of bad hair, cheesy grinning and toe-curling dialogue is long, long gone. Audiences now are bored with car chases, shooting lots of guns, running around European cities and dragging a dumb blonde in your wake. It’s been done, we’ve all moved on. This action thriller has to be one of the most tired, dated, cheesy, repetitive, flat, dull and just plain boring movies of the year. What’s more, even the audience it is aimed at – teenage boys – may well find its two leads far too old to appeal to them.

It follows the well-trodden formula of a Bond film – a mid-period Brosnan Bond film, not a Casino Royale – with Cruise as agent Roy Miller, who has gone ‘loco’ and turned to the dark side. He is carrying the macguffin, a AA battery that can power a small town and never runs out. Yeah, right. He has several ‘bad guys’ after him (his words), and uses Diaz’s June Havens as a mule to get the object through security. After they board a plane Roy takes out the entire crew, and becomes stuck with June as he zips around Europe trying to find the evil arms dealer who will buy the battery, while trying to protect its inventor, Simon (Dano, playing the same role he played in There Will Be Blood).

There follows some truly awful dialogue as Roy and June get it together, some dreary science bits and car chase after car chase after car chase. The effect is so mind-numbingly dreary it’s difficult to stay awake, let alone get the pulse rate up. Worse, the sequence where Roy takes June to his desert island and emerges, Craig-like from the water, looks like a bad Duran Duran video.

Cruise mugs his way through this dross, baring his teeth at every opportunity, flicking his hair in that irritating way and giving his pecs an airing whenever possible, all presumably to cover up the fact he has about as much screen presence as a jellyfish. As for Diaz, well, acting has never been her strong suit, but here she looks plain embarrassed most of the time. There’s a running ‘joke’ about her waking up in strange places, which wears thin quickly, and her relationship with a fireman, about the film’s only believable character, peters out to nothing. At least those two have a little spark, Diaz and Cruise have about as much chemistry as a physics lecture. Sarsgaard is here presumably to add some threat as the chasing baddie, but has way too little to do, and appears to be wearing the same clothes from An Education.

It’s difficult to know exactly where to lay the blame for this mess of a movie. Director Mangold has made the powerful Walk The Line and 3:10 To Yuma, but there have been poor test screenings of Knight And Day and rumours of reshoots right up to the film’s release. One sequence, with Cruise and Diaz riding through Seville on a motorbike during the bull run is technically well done, before you remember Seville doesn’t actually have bull runs through its streets. Similarly Vienna looks suspiciously like Prague, a much cheaper film venue.

The obvious scapegoat is writer Patrick O’Neill, an actor who was in Grosse Point Blank but has written nothing before or since this, and frankly it shows. When it tries to be witty it’s embarrassing, when it tries to be serious it’s funny, and not in a good way.

Knight And Day does prove one thing, Cruise is not a James Bond, or even a Roger Thornhill. It has been coolly received even in his solid fanbase, and who knows, maybe this is the beginning of the end. Straight into the top 10 worst films of the year.

Overall verdict: Dated, cheesy, overlong, turgid actioner that is well past its sell-by date and starting to hum.

Reviewer: Mike Martin