The film is set in 1928 and superbly depicts the historical culture of this time. The acting is realistic and emotive, especially on behalf of Jolie. Her presentation of depression and unfair detainment is particularly good: contrast this with her particularly dire portrayal of a psychiatric patient in Girl, Interrupted. Similarly, she acts well as a mother in desperate search of her child and the film succeeds in this respect: preaching the qualities of hope and faith.

(Source: http://hopeparkerson.blogspot.com/2008/12/clint-against-system.html)

Parts of the film are gruesome, but compelling. The capture and murder of innocent children is prominent in the film, as is the psychological chaos plaguing the murderer.

Clint Eastwood deserves praise for his treatment of other contemporary social and political topics. He deals with the issue of corruption in the police force very well, comparable to that excellently shown in LA Confidential. One character, a prostitute, is sent to the mental asylum for what, was in essence, self defence against an aggressive policeman client.

Other issues, such as the possibly primitive state of psychiatry in the 1920s are shown. Psychiatry is illustrated to be a nonsensical field of medicine that is oppressive towards its patients and more to do with incarceration as opposed to rehabilitation.

Finally, the film shows the status of women in the earlier part of the century. Women were seen as hysterical, emotionally as opposed to logically-driven and inferior to men in society. These themes are apparent in the film as Collins struggles to get her voice heard amidst chauvinism as well as corruption.

Its going to be a tough year for predictors at the moment. With no clear cut favourite, any of five of ten or eleven films could make the cut. Usually at this stage there is at least one film which everyone knows will make it for one reason or another – but this year, as we’ll see there are pros and cons to each of the potential winners.

Of course this should make the build up a hell of a lot more fun. Since the Crash/Brokeback Mountain shocker a few years ago, it seems now everyone is back on a knife-edge when the ceremony rolls around. Nothing feels like a safe bet anymore. Not even the biggest film of the year.

There is little doubt of the shadow that The Dark Knight has cast over 2008. The biggest box-office film of the year (except for in the UK, where it was outsold by Mamma Mia! of all things) would have been huge even were it not for the passing of its co-star Heath Ledger, but after his tragic death, the whole world seemed to go a little bit crazy (The Dark Knight held the #1 spot on imdb.com briefly after release) and there was little doubt what would gross the most this year.

Not that Oscar is primarily worried by such things as Box-Office gross. But as with Titanic, there might be a feeling in the Academy that if The Dark Knight is nominated then viewing figures of the ceremony would skyrocket (after last years dull show, it’d at least shake things up). The trouble the Academy is going to have is that however it is dressed up (a lot of people talking about it as a crime thriller), it is still a comic-book movie. Not the sort of thing they would want to touch usually. They bowed to public pressure eventually by honouring the third Lord of the Rings though, so maybe they will here.

Elsewhere, most of the names in the awards tombola are yet to arrive. Slumdog Millionaire, directed by Danny Boyle (Sunshine, Trainspotting, 28 Days Later among others) has arrived a little early stateside to incredibly positive reviews, meaning its an early frontrunner for a nomination. The story of a street urchin who enters Who Wants To Be A Millionaire to attract a girl he knows watches the show, Slumdog should prove to be a crowd favourite that seems to tick the Academy’s boxes.

Changeling is another one already in cinemas, but it has received disappointingly mixed reviews stateside. The Academy loves Clint, but they might feel its time to honour him for his acting (his “last role” in Gran Torino is also in the mix). Angelina Jolie should pick up a nomination here for her revelatory performance.

Ron Howard’s new one Frost/Nixon should garner a few nominations. An adaptation of a wildly popular stage play, it tells the story of the meeting of the fallen British journalist and the even further fallen post-Watergate president. It’s kept the same cast as the play, so assuming it doesn’t look too stagey, should be in with a good chance. Frank Langella is looking a strong bet for Best Actor too.

Australia by auteur Baz Luhrmann was my pick for Oscar gold this year, with its epic look and feel, a director the Academy does like, and a starry cast with the chance for some revelatory turns it looked a shoe-in. The film has been hampered with bad press in the last week or so though after Fox spoiled the film for everyone by announcing they were changing the ending. No spoilers here, but if you look it up you can find it easily enough. Will the Academy be put off by the studio interference?

Revolutionary Road could be a good bet for a nomination too. Billed as a reteaming of Titanic duo Kate Winslet and Leo DiCaprio, the adaptation of Richard Yates classic novel takes apart the myth of Suburbia – much like American Beauty, which won Oscars for Revolutionary Road director Sam Mendes.

The Wrestler is an odd one. Darren Aronofsky’s latest is being billed as a comeback for Mickey Rourke, which should be enough to see him nominated in the actor stakes. Whether it gets a Best Picture nomination or not will depend on how seriously the Academy takes a film about wrestling. I think they might need convincing.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a popular choice, seeing a reteam of Brad Pitt and David Fincher. The story of a man who ages backwards, it might just come down to whether the Academy thinks its too cutesy or weird. It has been getting mixed press from the festivals, suggesting it isn’t as good as it sounds on paper. The Academy might feel it’s a good chance to give Fincher a nod though, as all his previous work wasn’t really Academy material.

Milk is another front runner, by cult director Gus Van Saant. There is no getting away from the reason this might not get nominated, gayness. With Brokeback Mountain they proved they would nominate a film about homosexuality, but that was about coming to terms with something that was difficult – and even that divided the Academy. Milk has the theme of gay pride. One fears that unfortunately, this might be too much for the conservative Academy. Let us hope not.

Lastly, Valkyrie. Its an interesting one, on paper it looks like Oscar gold, Bryan Singer, Tom Cruise, and a heroic film about taking down Hitler. The press snipes towards the film however have been nasty. Mostly of course this is aimed at The Cruiser, who has committed the sin of believing in something that most of us don’t. I actually think the film looks really good. But whether the negativity will put of the Academy, I don’t know. Perhaps what The Cruiser needs to do is take a couple of years doing nothing and then star in a film like this and present it as his “comeback”, the Academy love that shit.

Kudos to Angelina Jolie for her aloof performance in a tale that takes her detective eventually to an abandoned farm where some boys were buried, one of which was likely her son. She had to come to grips with the loss the forcefulness of the police who pushed her into taking in a boy who was not her own so that they could come across as an efficient law making body when in fact they were highly corrupt in their dealings with a local asylum. Women who discredited the force were periodically shunted off to this place and if it was not for her priest friend she and those other women would not have seen the light of day, they would have been further traumatized by being subjected to electrical shock treatment for not wanting to accept the fact that the law was acting on their best behalf. The law contrived to put the mother and strange boy on the cover of a newspaper so that she could appear reunited.

One wonders how the Los Angles City police department or any other is conducting its business today after this fiasco, or if intimidation and shielding the truth is still not a modus operandi.

1. TOM CRUISE

The diminutive Tom Cruise is far and away number one when it comes to talentless actors who have hit the big time. I always wondered why he walked around with a constant grin on his face. The fact is, he can't believe his luck. He has one acting mode and that's anger. Anyone can act angry. It's all the other emotions, feelings and  facial expressions he fails to master. When I compare the likes of the wooden Tom Cruise to a real actor like Jack Lemmon, there is a chasm between them. Jack Lemmon could REALLY act. Tom Cruise is just a pretty boy who made good.

2. CLINT EASTWOOD

No matter how many of Clint Eastwood's movies you care to watch, you will observe that his facial expression seldom changes. He's made a career out of standing still and looking mean and moody. It's not as if he wasn't given the opportunity to diversify with his acting ability. After the Spaghetti Westerns, he appeared in some high profile films of the day like "Where Eagles Dare", "Dirty Harry" and "Paint Your Wagon". All very different from one another and yet Clint still managed to portray the same old character we see in every one of his movies. They should just have taken a still frame of him and inserted it at different points in the film. No-one would have been any the wiser!

3. BRAD PITT

Another actor in the Tom Cruise mold who rose to stardom on the basis that he looked a bit like a young Robert Redford. He has been given major movie roles on the basis of his looks and definitely not on his ability to act. Comparing him to Robert Redford does Redford a great injustice. He could act a bit as can be seen in films like "Day of the Condor" and those he starred in with Paul Newman. Brad Pitt is a big star with the tacky celebrity magazines but comes nowhere near being considered as a top Hollywood actor. Being a top celebrity and a top actor are two entirely different things.

4. JENNIFER LOPEZ

You have to wonder what some of these casting directors are thinking when they cast people like Jennifer Lopez in starring roles in movies they hope will be box office hits. I can't imagine ANY movie being a hit if it includes Miss Lopez in the line up of so-called stars. Jennifer Lopez couldn't act if her life depended on it and yet, like so many others who are in the public eye for whatever reason, she is hailed as a star who could make a movie into a success. Here's a thought for the casting directors: Why not think about selecting real actors as opposed to glorified celebrities. The viewing public might just appreciate it.

5. ANGELINA JOLIE

Mrs Brad Pitt must want to pinch herself every time her agent produces a new film script from movie makers who obviously lack common sense. To cast her in starring roles cannot possibly have anything to do with her ability to act. In some ways, she is like a female version of the aforementioned Clint Eastwood, having the same ability to star in film after film without having to change her facial expression. Look as you might at her movies and you will struggle to find any attemps that could even remotely pass for acting.

Another big rumour surrounding a possible third Batman movie is Johnny Depp’s role as the Riddler. To be honest, I hope for this one above all others prospects. Depp is highly praised as a character actor, and the Riddler is one of the more realistic Batman villains. For the most part, Batman’s villains possess nothing more than a criminal mind (with the exception of the physical strength of Killer Croc, and the plant-like powers of Poison Ivy), but for the benefit of this new franchise, I hope more realistic villains are used.

Finally, there is the notion that The Penguin, as played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, could make an appearance in the rumoured third instalment. Frankly, Danny DeVito’s portrayal of this character was wonderful. Besides, I can’t imagine the man who played Truman Capote as one of Batman’s rivals, kind of awkward for me.

There’s really no telling whether or not there will be another Batman movie, even though it’s pretty obvious that Warner Bros. will want to capitalize on it further. But in my opinion, I think the villain “Hush” should be next, but I guess that’s just a fan’s perspective. Someone better known will probably be the pick. In any case, I think everyone can agree that Heath Ledger’s performance cannot be surpassed in any way. Talk about setting the bar high.

The film has a confused feel to it, it doesn't know whether it's an X-rated late night art film or a family-friendly sword-and-sorcery epic, and ends up being an unfortunate mixture of the two. The innovative motion-capture CGI work acts as a thin veneer to cover a combination of gore (arms are ripped off, eyes are pierced, and people are literally torn limb from limb in graphic detail) and sexual metaphor (the obvious example being Grendel's Mother's seduction of Beowulf, while stroking his sword until the sword actually melts!) entirely unsuitable for a 12a rating, and gives the film an odd twist as for the first half hour I found myself thinking “gosh Antony Hopkins has put on weight” despite knowing that that isn't really Antony Hopkins. There are points when the computer images don't quite work, some of the female characters look as though they are made of plastic, while John Malkovitch's character has strangely dead eyes.

The plot, apparently adapted from scholarly debate, is just too weird for the mainstream audience it's trying to reach, while the action sequences are a hit-and-miss affair, some are effective, such as the fight between Beowulf and the sea monsters, and some are not, such as the fight with Grendel, which is perplexedly carried out while our hero is naked, for no real reason at all. As for casting, Ray Winston, although a good actor, is not really suitable for playing a Scandinavian warrior, unless Scandinavian warriors had cockney accents! Most of the other roles are interestingly and effectively cast, even Angelina Jolie, who seemed a strange choice to play the powerful, demonic Grendel's Mother but is surprisingly good, despite the gold paint.

It's a shame the film seems so uncertain of itself, because there are some sequences which are deliciously inventive and evocative. The mead hall sequences, so vividly evoked in the poem, come to life wonderfully; atmospherically suggests the sights, sounds and smells of the banquet. The dialogue between Grendel and his Mother is also beautifully rendered, spoken in some strange invented dialect and seen from the Mother's point of view, offering only glimpses of her in her true form, as she seems to be some sort of shape-shifter in this portrayal. Grendel himself is perfectly portrayed by Crispin Glover, a powerful, childlike performance coupled with a suitably gross character design, Grendel proves a very sympathetic monster.

I am unsure as to whether the attempts to reach a wider, more mainstream audience are due to the studio or the writers, but it's a decision which effectively ruined the film.

This movie was amazing for it's animation computer graphics and I now understand why computer generated images were used rather than the real actors. Some of the scenes involved stunts that would have been difficult if not impossible for a flesh and blood actor to pull off convincingly.

Unfortunately, that's just about the only thing about this film that was remotely interesting. The director took liberties with the original poem, to the extent that, the only thing that resembled the poem at all were the characters' names. In the poem, Beowulf indeed kills Grendel, and his mother, and an "un named dragon". The film has him bedding down with Grendel's mother and producing a son, who becomes the "un named dragon" in the end. It has Beowulf falling in love with Queen Wealthow. These two events did not happen in the poem....at least, not the one I read. Of course, I read it in college as part of an English Lit class almost 20 years ago, so I might not remember it correctly.

I think the only thing that might get people to go see "Beowulf" in the theaters is the chance to see a nearly naked, albeit pixelated, Angelina Jolie. Or the big names that make up the cast:

• Anthony Hopkins as King Hrothgar
• Robin Wright Penn as Queen Wealthow
• Angelina Jolie as Grendel's mother
• Crispin Glover as Grendel (George McFly in "Back to the Future")
• John Malcovich as Unferth
• Brendan Gleeson as Wiglaf (Hamish Campbell in "Braveheart", Mad Eye Moody in "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire")
• Ray Winstone as Beowulf (Teague in "Cold Mountain", Bors in "King Arthur")

All the actors did a fine job with the script they had to work with, but that's really not saying much. If you're a fan of Hopkins, Jolie, or Malkovich, I'd say go see this movie. Otherwise, stay home and wait for it to come out on HBO. It's really not worth the price of a movie ticket. (Which is why I'm glad I had VIP passes and went to the matinée.)

I'd give this film a 5 just for the graphics and all star cast. When it comes to films based on classical epic poems, I'd rather they stuck to the story. This one didn't even try.

My only objections were the amount of nudity and profanity Come on, can nobody make a film these days without the f-word in it?

Why do even biopics and T.V. Movies more resemble pornography? I understand that in today's desensitized society sex sells like mad, but the more you feed the beast, the hungrier it gets. What I mean by this is the more you allow something to tempt people the more they crave it, like an addiction.

When I set out to write the review on "Gia" I intended to be without prejudice and fair. Over all, the film was interesting and informative about the supermodel. Her rise and fall recorded in vivid unflinching detail.

There were even moments that might make someone want to cry. Her life as fast paced and adventurous as they get, Gia was the prototypical party girl.

Only sadly for her, when the party was over, there was nobody to pick up the pieces. If you like biopics, this one may be a little hard to swallow but in the end still worth the watch.