Simply put, Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is this year’s best action picture and delivers everything you could ask from a non-stop, thrill-ride of a blockbuster. Let me tell you why.

The key to the film success (of which there are many) is the energy and pure spectacle of what we are watching. Director Brad Bird (of Pixar fame) handles his first live-action feature with a clear understanding of how an action scene should look and never lets the audience rest for a moment as the action moves around the world from Russia to the more glamourous Dubai and India. This, the fourth instalment in the M:I franchise, is the closest to how James Bond used to be, with nuclear missiles and globetrotting and luxury cars and beautiful women; however, the writers still keep the ‘impossible’ in Mission: Impossible with the gadgets and customary break-in sequence. The heart of the series remains despite the wall-to-wall action that runs throughout the 133 minutes of screen time.

The plot is more in line with the original 1996 film than the two previous sequels as Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) and his IMF team must stop nuclear launch codes from getting into the wrong hands. Unlike the Brian De Palma film, the plot of Ghost Protocol remains fairly straight forward and understandable, but never slips into the plain and rather boring story of the series’ weakest entry, M:I-2. But with $140 million on show, I want to discuss the reason why you should part with you money to see Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol. And that is the action. And there is a LOT of it!

The story opens in Russia and this is where we have the break-in sequence and, although it’s not on par with the break-in to Langley or Vatican City as we’ve previously seen from the IMF, it’s still exciting and ends with the film’s first story arc; the explosion at the Kremlin. The film is split neatly into three acts. The Russia part is the first act and sets up the story and background of what’s happening, who the bad guys are, and who the new team members are (notably Paula Patton as Jane and Jeremy Renner as Brandt). From here on, it is non-stop as we move on to Dubai…

The marketing for the film has mostly focused on the Dubai section and the now well-known use of the world’s tallest building, the Burj Khalifa. In the trailers and online clips, we’ve seen Cruise scaling the building on the 135 floor, but believe me when I say that this scene MUST be seen in full IMAX just as director Brad Bird intended it to be. The Burj Khalifa scene is pure and utter movie spectacle, shot and made for no other reason than to wow and delight its audience. This is what sets Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (and the series as a whole) aside from its competition because Tom Cruise always wants to out do what we’ve seen on screen before. The iconic break-in to CIA headquarters at Langley in the first ‘Mission’ and the train and helicopter chase for the finale - nothing like it had been seen on film before and was a completely new direction for De Palma to go in. The drone attack on the Chesapeake Bridge in M:I:III remains, in my opinion, one of the greatest action set-pieces ever filmed and marked the arrival of JJ Abrams to feature film directing. And now the most audacious set-piece of the series so far.

When Cruise stands by the open window and the screen goes from standard to full IMAX, you cannot help but feel a sense of vertigo. Even though we know the scene was filmed without a hitch, in those few minutes, the sense of danger for Cruise/Hunt is constant and remember that really is Cruise on the building – no CGI backgrounds or stuntmen here. It is the most exciting and awe-inspiring sequence of the year for my money and is worth the price of admission alone and certainly worth the trip to your nearest IMAX to experience it. This beats 3D any and every time.

But Dubai isn’t just about the Burj Khalifa, and we are treated to the most daring and ingenious car chase I’ve seen for many a long time - in a sand storm. Bird films this scene expertly well, and the CGI is used to great effect as neither Hunt nor audience is aware of what is in front of them. This isn’t in a blurred, frantic Michael Bay way, but from a director who knows how to give the audience something new. It is a brilliant 20-odd minutes of entertainment.

Finally, the action moves to Mumbai and this is where the film could lose maybe 10 minutes of its running time, and also lose one element of a scene completely. It has been rumoured Jeremy Renner is to take over the M:I series (although there is nothing in this film to suggest Cruise is ready to hand over his IMF badge) and because he is a fairly big name now, he gets his own action scene and it is the only element I would cut out. It’s too far-fetched even for the M:I series and it only serves to drag out what is already a long sequence. That criticism aside, the action is relentless as we focus on Hunt in yet another unique action set piece, this time in a multi-level automated car park. Cruise, once again, delivers the energy and athleticism we’ve grown accustomed to as he throws himself into, onto, and through an array of cars to save the day. Like any James Bond, Die Hard or Indiana Jones film, we suspend belief that the hero could survive any of what we’ve seen, and just enjoy the sheer entertainment of it all.

This is very much Tom Cruise’s film, but the supporting cast do their job very well, especially Simon Pegg who reprises his role as Benji Dunn and supplies much of the film’s comic relief. Moreover, this fourth film is funnier and more comedic than the previous entries despite having more action than the others put together; I especially like the self-destructing message which doesn’t self-destruct. It’s a blend which works well and sets itself apart from the other movies. Each ‘Mission’ has its own identity and each director has put his own unique stamp on each film, and Brad Bird follows suit. A special mention also goes to Michael Giacchino whose score is right on the mark, although possibly not a clinical as it was on M:I:III, but that can be decided on future listening.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is everything you can ask for from a fourth film in the series and is the most explosively entertaining film of the year. Your mission, and you should accept it, is to see this in cinemas and IMAX this Christmas.

VERDICT: 8.5 OUT OF 10

Straight away I want to say this is one of the year’s worst films. And hereby follows a rant about why it should have a stake driven through its heart.

The original Fright Night was released in 1985, and has always been one of my favourite horror films as it took a new angle on the vampire genre, and added an injection of fun and adventure to the mix. It was fairly low budget with no massive 80s stars on the poster, but was great fun and had some excellent make up effects in the final scenes. At its heart, however, was an unlikely relationship between a teenager and a washed up TV host of a late night horror show. It was the partnership of these two which have the film its character, and you went along the adventure with them.

Fast forward 26 years and the same film has been remade, except all the fun has been removed, and replaced with some of the most tediously boring sequences I’ve seen in a film of any genre since A Nightmare On Elm Street was remade last year. And to make matters worse, it’s in 3D. At least the Elm Street remake save us that displeasure.

The fact that it was only released in 3D in the UK means we don’t even get the option to see the film as it was intended to be seen. By this I refer to the 20% in light reduction that comes when watching a 3D screening. Why then, don’t the film makers make a version which will counteract this darkness in post production? Why do we get the same film with all its 3D rendering but not get the common courtesy of actually being allowed to see what is happening on screen? And then they ask us for more money for the privilege of seeing less! If 3D is to continue, then films like Fright Night need to do something about how they are transferred to the big screen. Not being made in the first place would be my solution.

What we do get is a train crash of a script clumsily put together with the ability of a novice; it’s the equivalent of drawing a dot-to-dot picture with big yellow crayon instead of a pencil. It looks something like the original film, but nothing is done with any skill of precision.

I thought Colin Farrell would make an interesting change to the vampire of the original film - sexier, funnier, cooler. He shows these traits the first time we meet him, then he rapidly has less to do as the film falls a apart at the seams. He turns into a CGI face at some points, and a has a bored face the rest of the time. Not as bored as mine was, though. Furthermore, Anton Yelchin gives a career-worst performance at the age of 22. He has no charisma, no charm, and zero screen presence. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the man responsible for making us care about what happen in the next 106 minutes. If he can’t even be bothered, then why should the audience?

In the original, Fright Night was an horror show and the host was Roddy McDowell who was a vampire expert and the only hope the teenager had. Furthermore, the kid actually watched the show, so had a connection with the man before they even met. In this version, the old man is replaced a foul mouthed Gothic magician played by David Tennant doing an impression of Russell Brand doing an impression of Jack Sparrow. Just take a moment to think how bad that sounds.

Go on, think about it.

Keep thinking.

OK, now you know how dire the situation has become. It is only made worse however by the inclusion of the three worst words you can associate with casting a film today: Christopher. Mintz. Plasse. Is there anything as cancerous to a film’s critical success than this young man? I don’t think so. He personifies everything wrong with the new school of actors. He plays the same character all the time, and can’t even do that well. “What about McLovin’?” you may ask. That was a stupid character in a crass and vulgar film. It doesn’t pass as comedic acting any more than the new Fright Night passes as a horror or comedy. He saps all the atmosphere or credibility from even the most poorly written scenes (and there are plenty of those in this film) with his whiney little voice and attempts to show anything resembling a range of emotion. Even if Terrence Malick, Steven Spielberg and David Fincher collaborated to make a film - if Plasse had a role, it would still be a disaster.

There is nothing to recommend to anyone as to why they should part with their money to see the Fright Night remake. Stay in, get your hands on the 1985 original, and don’t worry about finding the 3D glasses.

VERDICT: 2 OUT OF 10. I can’t give it a lower score because that’d be putting it on par with Transformers 3 and The Hangover 2. It’s bad, but not offensively so.

The Skin I Live In is a masterfully created piece of film making. Part thriller, part revenge story, part romance, the film is a study on psychosexual development, gender changing, sexual identity, and the inner person; i.e. who we are beneath the skin which surrounds us.

The aim of my reviews is not to regurgitate a film’s plot and all of its twist and turns, but to tell you why or why not it is any good. To go into the detail of The Skin I Live In would be to spoil everything the film has in store for you. You should know as little of the plot as possible, but I will tell this much:

The film centres on the relationship between a surgeon (Antonio Banderas) and a woman he has prisoner in his mansion. She wears a skin-suit, practises yoga, and is kept under CCTV surveillance at all times. He is also in love with her. The second and third acts are told mostly in flashback, but by the time this comes you are entirely hooked as to the origins of how this situation came to be.

The result is something I’d not seen the like of before.

The characters are deeply disturbed. The surgeon is on a quest to create a replacement wife through the body of his prisoner, yet the woman wishes to remain in his world and it is her choice that she stays. The film pushes us to think about identity and what makes a person a person. Can one man change another in to someone else, and create a new identity to fill the void of their own lonliness, their own insecurities, their own demons?

Spanish director Pedro Almodóvar creates modern Frankenstein with sexual and psychological themes running throughout the film, making it one film which lasts long in the memory for its invention and philosophy as it does for its execution and enjoyment. The colours are vibrant, the frame always filled with detail, the camera movements are precise and patient yet he knows how to increase the tension when those scenes are needs. The wide angles in the hallways and ‘prison room’ give the surgeon’s house a characteristic quality, not just another set for action to take place.

The Skin I Live In is a rare film in which it belongs to no one particular genre yet remains as an excellent film throughout. Most films I see which cross several genres tend to be a disappointment as they fail to succeed in knowing what they are about or the audience they aim to reach. Almodóvar’s film is about so much more than the story or what happens on screen, and deserves repeated viewings if you can stomach the detail. It is a very adult film for adult audiences, and should be seen by people who wnat to get something from a cinema experience they usually wouldn’t expevt to take away. Like the best work of Stanley Kubrick, Almodóvar’s latest offering is multi-layered, challenging, absorbing, and rewarding.

VERDICT: 8.5/10 - This is Top 10 of 2011 potential.

The Guard is an small, off-beat film that works well as a comedy, but not so well in other departments. It plays like a cross between Bad Lieutenant and In Bruges, but set in small town Ireland, which gives the film its charm and originality, but it feels like one joke stretched over 90 minutes, and this is its downfall.

First and foremost, however, it is a comedy and because of this the film is largely a success. As the title character, Brendan Gleeson is superb in a role which was clearly written with him in mind; the character is vulgar, racist, drinks on the job, solicits with hookers, and generally doesn’t give a damn about this responsibilities as a policeman, yet Gleeson’s ability to make us actually like him is a testament to his talent as a actor. We can never be sure if he means the outrageous things he says, or if he is actually rather clever at working out a character through their responses. I think it is the latter because the script has a gloss of knowingness and awareness about it, which is also its undoing and something I shall comment on later.

If Brendan Gleeson covers the Bad Lieutenant side of the film (I use the connection very loosely of course), the Don Cheadle’s FBI man is the proverbial ‘fish out of water’ as we saw in In Bruges. A guy who doesn’t belong in the country, can’t communicate with the Gaelic community, and struggles at every turn. Sadly Cheadle’s role is underwritten, and I never felt a connection between the two leads but rather the focus always was on Gleeson. That’s fine because it is his character which is the most interesting and carries the film along, but the dichotomy of America meets Ireland and the massive differences between the two is never fully realised and I see this as a wasted opportunity to take a different approach on the buddy-cop theme. I know this isn’t supposed to be 48 Hours or Lethal Weapon, but having an actor like Cheadle involved could have lead to a lot more. In fact, take the American angle out of this film, and the film still works just as well. Gleeson could have been just as racist and obscene to another minority, and kept the same plot line.

For all the laughs that come from the ‘Irish charm’ of Gleeson, the film offers little else, and begins to lose its way once the effect of the constant obscenities wears off. Few things infuriate me more than when a script has it’s ‘tough-guy’ characters talking about philosophy and the arts and poetry in an attempt to break the mould of having them talk about their actual job. Post Pulp Fiction, it just strikes me a sloppy and not nearly as clever as the writer would have you think. The Guard falls in to this trap several times. Writer/Director John Michael McDonagh has created a very interesting central character, but I found the supporting roles to be lacking.

The film has been labeled as a western, but I think this is just a way of making it seem like something it isn’t; The Guard is not a modern western in the same way that, for example, James Mangold’s Copland was. Moreover, The Guard has its climatic shootout which is against the whole tone of the rest of the film. Westerns set their tone out from the very start and build up to the final showdown; The Guard appears to crowbar it in for no other reason than it wants a shootout.

The Guard is undeniably a good film, but nothing more than good. It is not this year’s In Bruges, it is not a modern western, and it is not as good as it thinks it is. Just because a film is British, doesn’t mean we can’t find its faults.

VERDICT: 6 OUT OF 10

Cowboys and Aliens. Now there’s a high concept movie title if I ever heard one. There are cowboys. There are aliens. And that’s pretty much it. But here is one summer blockbuster that doesn’t try to be overly complicated with a simple concept, yet doesn’t surrender its integrity by dumbing down to usual CGI mindless fare.

Cowboys and Aliens is a film you either go along with and buy into the situation, or you don’t. I don’t believe anyone out there will fall into the middle ground of liking the ‘cowboy’ but disliking the ‘alien’, or vice versa. The two elements on their own are not enough to save this film, but put together, they make for a unique summer experience.

The plot couldn’t be simpler; It’s the year 1873. Daniel Craig is Jake Lonergan, a tough man of few words who wakes up one day not knowing his name, where he is, or why he’s wearing a strange-looking bracelet on his wrist. Harrison Ford is Woodrow Dolarhyde, a tough man of slightly more words who strikes fear into everyman he meets and has a reputation as a leader of men from the Civil War. The two men have a chequered past as Lonergan has stolen gold from Dolarhyde in the past.

So far, so good, and so formulaic. Then the aliens spaceships arrive, and the two men have to work together to defeat the aliens - Dolarhyde’s son has been kidnapped, and Lonergan might just know the aliens from before and can use the braclet on his wrist to defeat them.

Essentially that is your $165 million offering. A great cast, some pretty good effects, and the usual stunning scenery that goes with any western worth its salt.

One aspect which makes the film work so well is its tone. It never lets up for a moment, and this is a serious, dark, violent (for a 12A rated film), and moody blockbuster. There are some comic touches (mostly from the always dependable Sam Rockwell) but it is mostly a film for a mature audience; I don’t see the enjoyment here for the under 16’s and that has been reflected in it’s US box office takings - less than $100 million in 4 weeks. Yet the film was marketed as a CGI-fest, which may have put the mature audience off; after the never ending supply chain that comes each summer, there are only so many films you can keep shelling out $12 a ticket for. This one such casualty.

I also liked the balance between the western and the sci-fi. This is primarly a western, 75% of the film is firmly in that genre with only Lonergan’s alien braclet looking out of place at any time. The sci-fi elements penetrate the western, and it is jarring to see the spaceships and bluelights in the sky when they appear, but it is a credit to the writers that the sci-fi doesn’t take over the story. It easily could have done to ramp up the CGI and ‘money shots’ for the trailers, but thankfully this isn’t the case.

I never thought I’d say this but congratulations must go to director Jon Favreau. He handles the action scenes well and they don’t come across as pedestrian and, frankly, boring as his two Iron Man films. This is because of the historical setting, where the only Lonergan’s bracelet delivers the ‘awe’ factor - the rest of the action is mostly grounded with six shooters, spears, bows and arrows, knives and chases on horseback. This forces Favreau to deliver clear and compelling scenes of action where the answer doesn’t lie in just explosions and the always unpleasant CGI vs CGI ‘character’ battles. Moreover, there are only three action scenes, including the traditional cowboys vs Indians finale, but with the cowboys and Indians working together to defeat the common threat. A nice touch. The rest of the picture is made up of scenes where we get to know the characters and their background, and we are treated to the luscious scenery at every opportunity.

The pedigree involved in making the film certainly helps in its success. On screen Craig and Ford are perfect in their roles, and the supporting cast of Olivia Wilde, Clancy Brown and Adam Beach (the go to guy for a Native American supporting role) all have plenty to do, although Sam Rockwell’s talent is slightly wasted in an underwritten, and ultimately needless, character. He deserves better from such a big film.

Behind the camera is Jon Favreau making easily his best work. Ron Howard produces, and has a love for the west as was seen in his own movies Far And Away, The Missing, and he served as producer on The Alamo remake. Writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman can be hit (M:I-III, Star Trek) and miss (Transformers 1 and 2, The Island) but this sees them mostly on target. There are a few plot holes, and the alien’s motivation is never entirely clear, but there’s enough here to suppress any fears of it not being any fun.

Normally, when a film maker is credited as being an ‘executive producer’, you can be pretty sure that means next to nothing and serves as just a name to put on the poster and trailer. Take Steven Spielberg for example. God only knows how he has allowed his good name and reputation to be stained with a credit on the Transformers trilogy, because nothing in those films even resembles his touch. In Cowboys and Aliens however, there is evidence to suggest he had a hand in a lot of the pre-production and alien aspects. War of the Worlds is heavily borrowed from but never quite plagiarised. In interviews I’ve heard Favreau talk of Spielberg giving him classic westerns to watch, and gave him a running commentary on John Ford’s The Searchers (not only one of the greatest westerns made, but one of the greatest examples of American cinema of any genre). Mr Favreau was obviously given a good lesson or two from the master, because this is a marked improvement in directorial ability.

Was Lonergan’s pause in the doorway towards the end a nod to Ethan Edward’s at the end of The Searchers? I think it was.

Simply because it fuses the two genres together so well, Cowboys and Aliens deserves to be seen. The fact that it is exciting, tense, visually arresting, and carried along by two excellent male leads makes it even better.

VERDICT: 8 OUT OF 10 - Too much good fun to focus on it’s negatives, of which there are few. A mature and refreshing blockbuster.

It’s ‘average new comedy’ time this weekend with the release of Horrible Bosses. Although it doesn’t break any new boundaries in terms of script, plot, or gags, it is funny throughout and worth seeing on DVD if not at the cinema.

The plot is simple. Jason Bateman works for slave-driver Kevin Spacey; Charlie Day is sexually harassed by his boss Jennifer Aniston (boohoo, I know); Jason Sudeikis finds his new boss, Colin Farrell, intolerable to work for. So, the three friend decide to kill each others’ bosses.

The film unashemedly refers to Throw Momma From The Train (Danny DeVito’s comedic reworking of Hitchcock’s Strangers On A Train) and this is essentially what we have; an updated version but with three killers and victims. The cast is excellent, and Jamie Foxx doesn’t even make the poster due to the lack of room for faces. Jason Bateman delivers most of the funniest lines for me, but that might be because I’m still obsessed with Arrested Development and will take anything even resembling that with much appreciation - he’s just Michael Bluth with a different name.

Charlie Day isn’t as well used in the film as he is in his hit show It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia and the script doesn’t stretch him enough to break out of the TV persona; something which Bateman has done with varying degrees of success. As for Sudeikis, he is the same here as he was in this year’s Hall Pass - crude, full of himself, and always getting the girl, one way or the other. The three work well together and you believe they are friends, although I would have liked to have seen them do more activities than just hanging out at the bar.

As for the bosses; Kevin Spacey is terrific as the mean, nasty character (Superman Returns, Swimming with Sharks, Glengarry Glen Ross) and here is is having a ball and gets some great lines. Jennifer Aniston is filthy and scantily clad throughout, and I don’t pretend I didn’t like to see her out of the ‘Rachel’ comfort zone she all-too-often finds herself is. The real shame is that Colin Farrell doesn’t get nearly enough screen time or dialogue. I would liked to have seen a lot more of him in a cartoonish comedic role.

The reason I called this an ‘average comedy’ is because, despite the stars and devilish premise, it never really goes beyond what it, and the actors, are capable of. The film could have been a lot darker yet keeping it’s high laugh quota - I’m thinking Very Bad Things and Ruthless People as example of how I would have liked to have seen this ending up.

Also, the bosses never actually do anything too horrible to warrant the path the three guys decide to take. The film is too hurried into getting to the ‘let’s kill them’ part, rather than allowing the audience to see just why they should get what’s coming to them.

On the plus side, there isn’t the happy ending where all the bosses make friends with their employees and vow to change their ways -  now, that would have been horrible.

VERDICT - 6/10

Good fun, but nothing more than that.

Terrence Malick directed his first feature film, Badlands, in 1973 and subsequently has made only four films since then. Each is a masterpiece of film making, and I am very happy to say The Tree of Life is no exception. Quite possibly, it is his most important and most heartbreakingly beautiful film to date.

Let me summarise the plot before I begin to explain why this is not only the best film of the year and but it may just be the film of the decade - and I say that with 8 and a half years to go. I am unsure how anything else could move me and delight me in terms of pure film making majesty as this.

In the present day, Jack (Sean Penn) is a man wrestling with the memories of his childhood and the tragedy of a his brother who died at 19. As a young boy, Jack (Hunter McCracken) grows up in 1950s Waco, with a tough father, Mr O’ Brian (Brad Pitt) and gentle mother, Mrs O’ Brian (Jessica Chastain), along with his two younger brothers. Essentially that is the ‘plot’ of this film, but like Terrence Malick’s other pictures, the plot is not what drives the film. The film is driven by the love of the director for his beliefs and passions on the relationship between man and nature. Why are we here? What is love? What is evil? Why do we treat each other so badly?

“There are two ways through life. The way of nature and the way of grace. You have to choose which one you’ll follow.” - Mrs O’ Brian

“What I want to do, I can’t do. I do what I hate.” - Young Jack

The film does not follow a typical narrative structure - we see Jack as a man, Jack as a young boy, Jack as a baby, Jack in the afterlife, and the creation of life itself - all weaved across 140 magical minutes. There has been much written about the meaning of this film and the messages and symbolism Malick may (or may not) be telling us. I am not writing to discuss that - that is for another essay all on its own. Moreover, ‘understanding’ the film in that depth of detail won’t necessarily enhance my viewing pleasure any more than it could possibly be right now. What will enhance it is repeated viewings, and this is a film I will watch over and over again for years to come.

Let me begin with the creation of life sequence. The beauty of Malick’s work technique he has to ‘capture’ moments and place them on film for our viewing pleasure; nothing ever seems forced or deliberate, but natural and organic. When I heard that he was using CGI for a large segment of his new film, I was immediately intrigued to see what he would do. I knew it wouldn’t be some ILM-created digital world, but nothing could have prepared me for a 22 minute sequence which holds the attention unlike anything I’d seen before. I had purposefully stayed away from reviews and essays before seeing the film for myself, and was unsurprised to read afterwards that Malick had indeed worked with Douglas Trumbull to create the effects - it is the single greatest visual feast for the senses we have witnessed since 2001: A Space Odyssey. Using fluorescent dyes, flares, CO2, paints, chemicals, and even milk to create the effects, this sequence MUST be seen at the cinema to do it justice. It is beyond special effects. I won’t even begin to describe its visual beauty, but I am happy to admit it brought a tear to my eye - this is what every film lover wants to see, and seeing it was an emotional experience.

Again, much has been made of the inclusion of dinosaurs in this section of the film. I would argue that, although the film would work perfectly well without the scene, it was such an intriguing and original idea to have the confidence to show to the audience and the parallels it has with life as we know it now, the film does not suffers from its inclusion one bit.

The Tree of Life immerses the viewer with shots and scenes of pure cinematic poetry - this is the experience of cinema at its grandest. The 70mm sequences (if only the whole film were shot this way!); his trademark low tracking shots through grass; his trademark low angles, looking up a man and nature; the voice-over and narration; the classical score; It is all there throughout the film.

The lighting and cinematography is a thing of beauty in itself - the innocent soft whites of the 1950s, and the metallic, harsh palate of the modern day. It was interesting to see Malick’s first representation of the present day on film, as all other films tale place in the past. The low angles are distorted by glass ceilings, the tall trees replaced by skyscrapers, Sean Penn rides an elevator as the scenery disappears behind him. Malick does not seem happy with the modern world, yet his style never flags, not for a second. We can tell so much of his thoughts with what the camera does - it is a talent unlike no other. His camera rarely stays still and the sense of movement is so natural, floating around the characters and scenery, that we get caught up in its flow, taken along in the journey of just a few seconds, before the next one begins. Malick doesn’t linger on shots for too long, but scenes like the perfectly framed shot of the new born baby’s foot between the hands of Brad Pitt stays in the memory long after it is over - perfection.

I’ve since read the original cut was 8 hours long. I would happily sit and watch this version. I only hope an extended version one day comes to DVD, and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki believes this will happen. Read here for more on this.

I can not fault this film. To me, it is film making of the highest order and has no equal. Yet I understand why many people will not enjoy it. They will say it is boring as there is no plot; they will say it is two or three different films put together and neither fit the others; they will say it makes no sense. I say the same thing about 75% of the new films released. Each person enjoys different things. Moreover, The Tree Of Life doesn’t have the same level of enjoyment I get from such greats as The Godfather, Taxi Driver, The Searchers, The Apartment, or even Malick’s The Thin Red Line.

What it does have is a unique quality that I had not seen before, and a cinematic experience I may never have again.

VERDICT - 10 OUT OF 10. Flawless film making.

This is what a teaser trailer should look like (and it’s only a bootleg at the moment)!

David Fincher look to be back on darker ground with The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo. I tipped this as one of the must-see films for 2011, and it looks like I won’t be wrong if this is anything to go by.

2011 promises to be big year for huge big-budget movies, but most of those are not the films I am greatly anticipating. There are some, of course, but in the selection below you won’t find anything to do with Transformers, Pirates, Harry Potter, or Twilight. And for those readers who share my outlook on modern cinema, that should come as a welcome relief.

So, stop thinking for yourself, and check out my must-see films for 2011, starting with my top 3:

#1: THE TREE OF LIFE

Stars: Brad Pitt, Sean Penn

Director: Terence Malick

Released: May 27 (US)

Why Is It On This List ?: One of cinema’s greatest film makers returns to cinemas after 6 years; 3 out of 4 previous films are all masterpieces. Brad Pitt’s best work comes when he is paired with a great director. Sean Penn is one of the greatest actors working in Hollywood today. Did I mention it’s directed by Terrence Malick?

#2: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL

Stars: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner

Director: Brad Bird

Released: December 16 (Worldwide)

Why Is It On This List ?: The fourth movie in the highly successful Mission: Impossible series sees Tom Cruise reprise his role as super-spy Ethan Hunt, with a strong cast supporting him as fellow IMF agents or ruthless villains, including Oscar nominated Jeremy Renner.

The previous movies have all had a different director stamp the trademark style on each adventure, and Ghost Protocol sees Pixar favourite Brad Bird directing his first live-action feature with JJ Abrams and Cruise producing.

It promises to be non-stop action and thrills, just like the others in the series. I only wish it were being released in the summer. But JJ’s own movie has taken that slot - see my #3 pick, below.

#3: SUPER 8

Stars: Noah Emmerich

Director: JJ Abrams

Released: August 19 (UK)

Why Is It On This List? : JJ Abrams is directing and Steven Spielberg is producing. As if they weren’t reasons enough, the teaser trailer released last year is one of the most intriguing I’ve seen for a long, long time. A train crashes carrying some top-secret cargo in 1970s Ohio. The trailer suggests it is something not from this world…

Perhaps a dark Close Encounters? We don’t yet know - and that’s the beauty of Super 8 so far.

The following are in no particular order, but are all on my radar:

THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

Stars: Daniel Craig

Director: David Fincher

Released: December 26 (UK)

Why?: The King of Darkness, David Fincher, appears to be returning to his dark and brooding roots with this remake of the Swedish hit. I’m Hoping for a lot more Se7en than The Social Network.

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER

Stars: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones

Director: Joe Johnston

Released: July 29 (UK)

Why?: It’s because this one is sticking to its WWII origin and Nazi bashing, and not set in the modern day that I’ve included it on my list. There has been a leaked trailer which did look good, especially compared to the dismally by-the-numbers Thor, but director Joe Johnston’s last three films were Wolfman, Hidalgo, and Jurassic Park III so I am concerned over the quality of the final product. Let’s hope I’m wrong (yeah, right).

SCREAM 4

Stars: Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, David Arquette + many more!

Director: Wes Craven

Release: April 15 (UK)

Why?: I believe the original Scream to be not only one the best films in the horror genre, but also a textbook example of revisionist film making.

With the original director, screenwriter and core cast all in place, the latest in the series promises to be in the tradition of the previous trilogy and will hopefully show other film makers of modern horrors how to make an effective genre film. When he does it right, no one can compete with Craven at his own game.

SHERLOCK HOLMES 2

Stars: Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Rachel McAdams

Director: Guy Ritchie

Released: December 16 (Worldwide)

Why?: The first movie was a lot of fun with RDJ and Law working well together on an original take Holmes and Watson yet still set in 1890s London.

Guy Ritchie over-did the slow motion for me, but although he has never better Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels it was easily his best effort for a decade. All I can hope for is more of the same from the two leading stars and it should be a lot of fun again.

UNKNOWN

Stars: Liam Neeson, January Jones, Dianne Kruger

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra

Released: February 25 (UK)

Why?: All the cast are dependable, and Neeson showed he can do action fairly well in 2008’s Taken. I certainly hope this will be a marked improvement in terms of quality (Taken’s opening 20 minutes was truly dire) and the trailer gives us some hope, and Berlin makes a nice change for a Hollywood action picture.

I do fear there may be a twist or plot device which will let this film down, but the trailer has enough in it to make me go and find out

DRIVE ANGRY

Stars: Nicolas Cage

Director: Patrick Lussier

Released: February 25 (UK)

Why?: Nic Cage is always great to watch and although I’ll be the first to admit this probably won’t be his finest hour, it does look a lot of fun and should be very violent and filled with black humour. And it co-stars Amber Heard, so…

TRESPASS

Stars: Nicolas Cage, Nicole Kidman

Director: Joel Schumacher

Released: Late 2011

Why?: Nic Cage again - he has plenty more in the pipline - this time with Nicole Kidman as a husband and wife who are held hostage in their own home, but not everything will be as straightforward as that of course.

The pairing of the two NC’s is more than enough for me to be first in the queue when this opens toward the latter part of 2011.

THE BEAVER

Stars: Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster

Director: Jodie Foster

Released: February 11 (UK)

Why?: I still like Mel Gibson. There I said it. Despite the sad public breakdown he has suffered in the last few months, he remains one of my all-time favourite film stars.

In The Beaver he plays a man who is at the brink of giving up on life, then finds a beaver puppet in a trash can. He uses the puppet to communicate with the outside world, and wins popularity and a renewed confidence through it.

Sounds strange and off-putting? Perhaps you’re better suited to watching the new Transformers instead.

SOURCE CODE

Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga

Director: Duncan Jones

Released: April 22 (UK)

Why?: Duncan Jones’s debut feature, Moon, represented one of the best sci-fi films for many years that I’d seen. Intelligent, well-paced, engaging, and very well made, Jones made an excellent film on a relatively very low budget.

Based on the latest trailer, Source Code has given Jones a much higher budget to work with and again it looks like Jones has made an intelligent sci-fi picture, albeit with more of a focus on thrills and spectacle. It centres around a man (Gyllenhaal) who can enter the body of another man for only a short time period on a train journey, and he must use this time to find a bomber on board.

It smacks of Phillip K. Dick to me, and that can’t be a bad thing.

HALL PASS

Stars: Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis

Directors: Bobby Farrelly, Peter Farrelly

Released: March 11 (UK)

Why?: As the only comedy on my list, this one is all about the potential from the trailer; it actually had me laughing out loud which not many trailers do. And I don’t think a sequel to The Hangover is warranted, so Hall Pass is my comedic choice for 2011 at present!

There will be plenty more as 2011 unfolds, but these are the few which stand out at the moment for me - and now for you, too.