Elyssa and I have had our first month of Amazon rental, consisting of three DVDs, and we'll definitely be continuing it, if for no other reason than it gets us to stop for five minutes and sit down and watch a film together. For January we had 'Batman Begins', 'A Life Aquatic' and 'Churchill (The Hollywood Years)'.

'Batman Begins' was okay, but generally rather dull. It hit a low-point early on when Liam Neeson (I think it was him, I mix them all up, those actors) said something in the monastery about being able to hide in the shadows, then I think he clicked his fingers and twenty ninjas dropped to the floor from the ceiling-beams where they'd been hiding, possibly since lunchtime. I did actually quite enjoy it, but it had many tiresome moments.

'A Life Aquatic' always looked intriguing, though I'd heard mixed reviews. But I have to say I thought it was really very good indeed. It had a nice upbeat feeling to it, was very quirky and I couldn't get over Willem Defoe being a German nerd. It even had a kind of hidden pirate base on an abandoned island. A lovely film.

And last night we saw 'Churchill (The Hollywood Years)'. I hadn't read any good reviews of this, I don't think, and mainly wanted to see it after reading about Antony Sher playing Hitler (see this funny little story from his book 'Primo Time'). But the film totally surprised me by being very funny indeed and full of some wonderful performances, particularly from Leslie Phillips, Harry Enfield and Antony Sher. It was a very traditional British comedy in a way, sort of the Comic Strip meets Ealing Studios, perhaps even a little Carry On, but with more swearing and explosions. It must have been inspired in particular by that whole Enigma machine thing in 'U-571', and perhaps just a few other films as well.

A mince pie is poised and at the ready, and a small pile of presents still remain for wrapping, but I thought I'd expound a few thoughts on Peter Jackson's 'King Kong', which I saw last night, before becoming a Christmas elf.

First of all, generally and overall, it was excellent, highly enjoyable, spectacular and well-made. I loved it.

But if I bring in some 'baggage' I can get more critical. My baggage is that I am very attached to the 1933 original; those early thirties fantasy adventures, such as King Kong, She and Lost Horizon, evoke such a wonderous and thrilling atmosphere. Secondly, and related to the first point, is my admiration of lost world/lost race fiction, a genre Kong belongs to. With that in mind I do have a few criticisms, but these are pretty minor really. At first I thought the acting was all a bit melodramatic - fine in 1933, not really necessary in 2005. Jack Black was great in the film, but I felt his famous last line, 'twas beauty killed the beast', seemed slightly forced on his character. Maybe this is unfair as the line is pretty famous. I thought the secret map looked too much like a film prop and the build-up to Skull Island was unsubtle, without the gathering of mystery it deserved. Once they were on the island and through the gates, things were rather overdone and we lost some of the awe the island could have inspired. A million dinosaurs, a zillion insects and, if being unkind, a bit of a theme-park ride. I didn't like the stuck-on subplot of the second mate and the cabin boy, which seemd to be missing parts, with the boy reading Heart of Darkness and the mate giving literary criticism on said book (I did like the character of the mate though).

Moving on to more positive crticism, and some things I really liked. The city-scapes and thirties New York at street-level was terrific. The glimpses of a more ancient civilisation on the island were tantalising and the fearful natives were excellent, forced to live on the rocky outskirts of Skull Island while a lush paradise, just yards away, was denied them. The action, despite it pummeling some atmosphere out of the film and being overdone, was exhilirating. Kong himself came across very well indeed on the screen and the Kong and girl scenes worked nicely I thought, but then I like a bit of pathos in the mix. Overall a wonderful film, but I wanted more from it, perhaps unfairly.

A couple of weeks ago I went to see 'Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire' from which I wasn't expecting much but actually hugely enjoyed. In fact it got me back into Potter again (after the Chamber of Secrets film put me right off) and I caught up and read the most recent two books.

Our local Picture House was showing Howl's Moving Castle during half-term week, and as my brother had a day off we went to see the latest possible showing at 6 pm yesterday. As you'd expect from Miyazaki's studio, the visuals and creative ideas in this animated film are astonishing. I could watch the opening scenes set in the steam-powered Edwardian town expanded for hours as there's so much to see and experience. The animation is top notch stuff, and Studio Ghibli have surely toppled Disney's lost crown for creating magic on the screen. Little things like the brushing down of an apron are so nicely rendered that they bring unexpected joy.

The story meanders a fair amount, but is sustained throughout by the visuals, the characters and the surprising twists and turns in the plot. No character, except perhaps the main one, Sophie, is clear-cut, and you lose yourself in the film as you try to get a fix on them. Sadly, Howl's Moving Castle does not have the perfection of Spirited Away, Miyazaki's last big release for western cinemas. The resolve is too sudden, too easy, and storylines are despatched with a couple of sentences in a scene at the end that produced a cringe on almost every line (for a film that so far had me completely lost in its world). Blink and you'll miss an earlier reference to the lost prince, until the end. I was also disappointed that we had the dubbed version rather than subtitled, but then this screening was timed for half-term. Having said that, adults outnumbered the children, and I wonder how well children as young as 7 or 8 would follow it. Maybe they don't have to in order to enjoy what is, in the end, a great piece of cinema fantasy.

Last night Ellie and I watched Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events. It was like watching a bad play. Every time Jim Carrey appeared I yawned and wanted the film to end (I have nothing against Carrey as an actor, just this film). The baby's utterances would have been funnier without the subtitles. It had no atmosphere, mystery or excitement. Some of the designs were nice. Very disappointed.

On holiday, at the Picture House in York, we saw Crash. This was one of those ensemble films where a series of characters and scenes all intertwine, something like Magnolia. It was very good, with excellent acting and great characterisation. Some of the characters were likeable (the lock-repair chap) and some weren't (the Iranian shop keeper). Others had more shades of grey (the two policemen, the criminals and the TV director). It's a film about race and how complicated prejudice is. My favourite scene, and a turning point in the story, was where Matt Dillon rescues the lady he practically assaulted earlier in the film from a car wreck. Near the end of the film, the younger policeman makes an assumption and discovers he's not as pure as he imagines, echoing the advice Matt Dillon gives him earler, "don't think you know yourself just yet" (paraphrase).

Went to see this tonight with Elyssa... very enjoyable, if far more weird than I expected. It was sort of Wizard of Oz meets the Rocky Horror Picture Show meets Billy Elliott. It had an 'English' setting as well. Depp was very good, as usual, and the squirrels were excellent... they must have been CG, but you couldn't see the join*. Not much to say about it, but good.

As an aside, I've never read the original book, but once, for my mum's birthday when she was ill in bed, I performed the play version (from a book) with me playing all the parts. I can only remember one prop which was a brown paper bag, but there must have been more to it than that. I suppose I was about ten or twelve years old.

* Edit 10.08.05: According to the Funday Times, Aug 7: "Four animal trainers worked with 40 squirrels for the nut room scene. The real rodents were supplemented by a troop of lifelike animatronic squirrels, made with real squirrel fur."

Watched this wonderful Korean film late last night (on my iMac). A very serene story of a Bhuddist disciple who strays from the path and then returns to it, the cycle of life and the seasons, a lovely Zen tale. I would very much like a couple of months in the little temple in the middle of that lake. Beautiful.

A book I've been meaning to get hold of for the last 4 years has finally come my way thanks to the massive online jumble-sale that is ebay. 'Rudyard Kipling and Sir Henry Rider Haggard on Screen, Stage, Radio and Television' by Philip Leibfried is a wonderfully researched tome of incredible detail, and very worthwhile. It took me a while to get round to reading the acknowledgements at the front, but was pretty surprised to see my name listed. When Philip was researching the book I do remember a couple of emails back and forth regarding film versions of Haggard's 'She', and in particular a search for the elusive Alice Delysia who played Ayesha in the 1916 version, but it certainly wasn't enough to deserve a credit (as pleased as I am!). What a jolly nice thing to do though.

I am a particular fan of 'The Man Who Would Be King' based on Kipling's short story, and just think it one of the best adventure films made. And I still retain my interest in filmed versions of 'She'. At the moment I'm rather intrigued by the throne used in the 1935 RKO version starring Helen Gahagan, I was convinced it must have been designed by the wonderful Kay Nielsen by the look of it, but the IMDB reveals it was Alex Hall. Even the massive statues in the main hall of the set have a look of Nielsen, being very reminiscent of his concept sketches for Disney's Fantasia. The whole set is really something to behold (they re-used the huge gates from 'King Kong'), and echoes another great lost world film of the 1930's, 'Lost Horizon'.

Had a very nice weekend (karate, pop quiz, car-washing, play rehearsal), aided and abetted by the weather, and rounded off on Sunday evening by going to see Shaun of the Dead.

As a big fan of Spaced, I was very hopeful for Shaun of the Dead, and was not at all disappointed. Perhaps you could criticise it for being too close to the TV comedy by the same creative team (Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg), but that didn't matter to me - it's a style they've made their own, and the format deserved a turn on the big-screen. I really like Edgar Wright's style of cutting, and just hope he can move onwards and upwards with it from here. The film was funny but actually incredibly dark, particularly when Pegg's character finds himself faced with having to shoot his own mother, a scene I found almost unwatchable, but it added an unexpected weight to the film. Another notable scene is the line up of British new-comedy talent on show when the two bands of survivors meet, mid-suburbia, one headed by Simon Pegg, the other by his Spaced co-star, Jessica Stevenson. Matt Lucas hardly grunts but it gets a laugh. Go and see it!

Too much work at the computer this week has resulted in my right eye getting an annoying twitch. Last time this happened was because I read all six issues of Simon Perrins' most excellent 'Hope For the Future' comic on CD-ROM (I couldn't stop reading it, it was too enthralling). Work hasn't been going too well this week.

I had to rest my eyes from the computer screen so decided to take a break and watch a DVD I received at Christmas, but hadn't yet had the time to watch, Kurosawa's 'Red Beard'. Apart from it being lovely just to take a break and relax, the film was utterly wonderful. I don't think I've ever seen a film that had me in tears from the tragic stories one minute then laughing like an idiot the very next. And not laughing because of comedy necessarily, but just at the joyous bits.

It really is remarkable, Kurosawa, yet again, doesn't disappoint. As Alex Cox explains on the DVD extra, 'Red Beard' was the last of Kurosawa's recognised greats (1965), pretty much until 'Kagemusha' in 1980. I don't agree with Cox when he suggests the film reveals Kurosawa's sexism though. The female characters from this film are not unlikeable, they do have character, and despite what he says, not all the patients at the clinic (around which the film is centred) are female - two of the main patient-characters are male. The female characters are memorable and dominate parts of the film. Seek this film out if you can, but don't expect another 'Seven Samurai'. There's one fight sequence (brilliantly done, of course) in the entire two hours fifty-two minutes. A very positive film whose message seems to say that goodness of being can get results.

Due to last year's heightened activity in Charlie Chaplin events and products (and I believe the late Chaplin Society had some bearing on this, to what degree I don't know) I have redesigned, updated and given a fresh home to the Chaplin UK Video and DVD Guide.

This is a reliable guide to most of the DVDs and videos that are available in the UK featuring Charlie Chaplin, and can tell you which editions are good quality, which ones are cheap and cheerful, and which ones are badly produced. If you're new to silent film in any form (comedy or drama) then watching a badly produced video can turn you off them for good, whereas watching a film that has been lovingly remastered, rescored and given its due care and attention can realise the beauty of this art form for you. Sadly, many volumes are of the former variety, often because the film rights are either free, cheap, or no one cares and it gets put together on a budget, often along with a lack of knowledge. Things are getting better, with the MK2 editions of Chaplin's classics, and Eureka have improved greatly since their early releases, most recently to give us a stunning edition of the wonderful Sunrise .