Defending Flash Gordon isn’t easy. It’s a film which I have to concede is neither big nor clever. If you need proof of this, look at the special effects and the script in general. To summarise the basic structure of the film, Earth is being attacked by an alien named Ming and Flash Gordon stops him. I’d tell you what happens in between but to be honest, it’s not the tightest of plots. Bear with me. If you can get past these hurdles, you’ll find a hilarious, camp and continually entertaining cult classic.

If you’re nervous about openly embracing the ‘so bad it’s good’ mantra of cult cinema, you might still be able to acknowledge some aspects of the film as formidable. It’s impressive alone for the myriad of sexual innuendo it manages to fit into 100 minutes of PG rated screen time. And I’m not talking about subtle allusions; I’m talking about references to necrophilia, one nymphomaniac princess and multiple sadomasochistic set pieces including an almost entirely random whip fight because, obviously, on an alien planet the whip would be the natural weapon of choice for a deathmatch.

But genuinely, Flash Gordon is a film with merit beyond the number of laughs it offers. It is now, more than ever a refreshing example of its genre. We seem to have hit a phase in the film industry which involves the churning out of apocalyptic films which, as important and chilling as they are, do tend to leave the average cinema-goer overcome with guilt and all kinds of other not so warm and fuzzy feelings. And Flash Gordon is the antithesis of that. The coming ruination of the planet and all its peoples is not self-inflicted; no one is trying to cast the audience as the perpetrators of a crime.

We have a simple all-American hero fighting a psychotic alien king and as much as we rave about the depth of character in cinema, there’s still something totally disarming about an old fashioned good guy versus bad guy. Sometimes we don’t want to explore the inner workings of a hero’s psyche or sympathise with our villains. Is it so wrong that we might occasionally just want a raging maniac who decides to throw ‘hot hail’ at Earth because he’s bored? And if that plot point hasn’t convinced you of the absurd brilliance that is Flash Gordon, I don’t know what will.

You would be forgiven for walking into Precious thinking you’re about to see your average uplifting rags-to-riches story. But the word ‘uplifting’ might not be one that immediately springs to mind after seeing this, and rags-to-riches does not at all suffice as a description. But more importantly, there is nothing average about this film.

Precious tells the story of 16-year old Claireece Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe). To say she has problems is a gross understatement. Severely overweight, a single mother, pregnant with her second child, she lives in Harlem with her violent and abusive mother (Mo’Nique). As if her present situation wasn’t bad enough, her past is one of abuse in all its hideous forms.

That’s a rather daunting set-up for any story. The filmmakers could easily have turned this overwhelming list into a teary-eyed melodrama. When Claireece is sent off to join a special education program with an inspiring young teacher you might think that this is exactly the path that the film will take. But it easily avoids that trap. The director, Lee Daniels, doesn’t pander to the audience. He doesn’t give you what you think you want to see, a happily-ever-after ending. Often, Claireece dreams of becoming a music star – it shouldn’t take you long to realise that’s not going to happen. Daniels hasn’t created a story so full of raw emotional power only to completely undermine it come the end. It’s not that kind of film.

Other directors may try to hide some of the harsh and brutal details of their heroine’s plight, but there’s no such capitulation to the audience’s sensitivities here. Daniels doesn’t dress-up the horrendous situations faced by Claireece by breaking out the violins. Indeed the lack of overwrought music is rather refreshing. He doesn’t use it to try and tell the audience how they’re supposed to feel, we’re left there to work things out for ourselves. Where you might expect some uplifting music to kick in, he holds back, letting us, or perhaps forcing us, to really watch and listen.

I said there was nothing average about this film, and nowhere is that more true than with the acting. Across the board it is utterly superb. In the lead role, Sidibe is never less than convincing, whilst playing her mother, Mo’Nique has managed to retain some humanity in a character that could otherwise so easily have been turned into a monster. Even Mariah Carey, playing a social worker, is entirely believable, producing a remarkably naturalistic performance. It’s little surprise that the awards have already starting rolling in for the cast.

If you leave the cinema feeling a bit confused, ‘was that a happy or a sad ending?’ then the director has done his job. This isn’t your standard tearjerker. Reducing a cinema audience to tears is easy, and so it’s often used as a quick and simple way of eliciting an emotional response from them. Any director can make an audience cry. A few can make them think.

4 stars

The question ‘what if?’ has been the origin of innumerable flights of science-fiction fancy from Hollywood. Right now it appears there is a preoccupation with one particular formulation of this very question: what if it all ended tomorrow, the world as we know it snuffed out overnight?

Certainly, the amount of films either recently released or imminent dealing directly with an end of the world scenario, or set within a post-apocalyptic environment, is remarkable. We’ve already had the disaster movie 2012, the decidedly more understated Carriers and the computer-animated 9, which offers an irreverent take on familiar material by substituting woollen puppets as the survivors of a holocaust for the more traditional human protagonist. This January, meanwhile, saw the much-anticipated arrival of The Road, an adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s acclaimed novel, and the less highbrow The Book of Eli, an action blockbuster starring Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman. Thematically the two films are almost interchangeable: they both address what happens to human nature under extreme duress when the boundaries of civilisation are removed, although The Book of Eli is likely to address these concerns with considerably more in the way of explosions.

It is telling that the release of two of these films was significantly delayed. The Road was completed over 12 months ago, whilst Carriers has been sitting on the shelf for two years. Is it a coincidence that they have been postponed until now? I think not. For many, standing on the cusp of the new decade feels more like teetering over a precipice, and the films that herald its arrival reflect a Western world scrutinising itself in a cinematic mirror in anticipation of meeting its maker. The brutality and callousness on display in many of these films, few of which offer much in the way of optimism, suggest that disillusionment with human endeavour will figure heavily in popular culture as we enter an even greater period of uncertainty.

Or maybe not. Indeed, it should be noted that besides 2012’s respectable revenue, none of the aforementioned features have set the box office alight in America. Although Hollywood is clearly interested, even invested, in the allure of the apocalypse, it would appear audiences are less enamoured of visiting the pictures to be reminded of the bleak prospects outside. It is quite possible in fact that the modern apocalypse movie is already on the way out, only to receive the occasional light-hearted gesture in knockabout comedies like Zombieland, or superficial lip-service in blockbusters where the cosy survival of the American percentage of humanity and all its adorable household pets is ensured from the opening frames.   

If so it’s a shame, since an apocalypse movie capable of catching the zeitgeist and captivating large audiences would be welcome. Sure, it may address the issues confronting us in broad terms, but people are surely likelier to take an interest if the future of our world is being discussed in a medium with the universal power of cinema. A medium that makes apocalypse feel frighteningly plausible. Just ask yourself…what if?

Nine is like Moulin Rouge for grown-ups. Set in achingly chic 1960s Italy, it is interspersed seamlessly with musical numbers. Based on Federico Fellini’s 1963 film 8 1/2, Nine tells the story of Guido Contini, a struggling film director with one last chance to make a good movie and save his career. Unfortunately, with one week until filming begins, Guido is still a little short of ideas. Will he be struck with inspiration in the form of his beautiful muse, the world-famous actress Claudia Nardi (Nicole Kidman)? We follow him through the build-up to the beginning of filming, squirming all the way as he awkwardly tries to dodge questions about the whereabouts of the script, and fails spectacularly to successfully juggle all the women in his life.

The idea of the film is loosely based on the notion that behind every good man is a good woman, except in this case, behind one rather lost and pathetic man are seven really rather super, strong Italian women at the ready to prop him up, put cigarettes in his mouth and shout at him when necessary.

One way in which the film unequivocally succeeds is in juggling its stellar cast. Indeed, six of the ladies plus Day-Lewis have been nominated for “Best Acting Ensemble” at the 2010 People’s Choice Awards. There was always a danger that with Daniel Day-Lewis, Judi Dench, Marion Cotillard, Sophia Loren, Nicole Kidman, Kate Hudson, Penelope Cruz and, of course, Fergie, all jostling for position in an 118 minute film, the overall result would be like a huge group of superbly talented people all trying to cram through a doorway at once. Part of this success can be attributed to the format of the film, in which, in a way vaguely reminiscent of Chicago, each of the female characters are in turn showcased and given the chance to express their stories and struggles through the medium of song, dance, and in one case, stripping down to her bra and knickers in anguish.

The sophistication of the setting is part of the pleasure of watching Nine. This sentiment is nicely summed up in Kate Hudson’s flashbulb-blowing number ‘Cinema Italiano’, which has earned its writer Maury Yeston nominations for best song at both the Critics Choice Awards and the Golden Globes. It is the catchiest of all the songs in the film, while others are not hugely memorably. Although at times the film can seem slow, there are plenty of moments to enjoy. Watch out particularly for Guido slipping into a steamy bath with a high-ranking Catholic cardinal who proceeds to lecture him on morality.

This film seems to divide opinion between those who are dazzled by the glamour of the 1960s Italian, cheap, feel-good movie business, and those who are bored because they can’t bring themselves to care about Day-Lewis’s drink-sodden, cheating, chain-smoking, almost-washed-up film director who has no problem indulging his inner child.

Ultimately, due to his reputation for being a bit picky about what he appears in, Day-Lewis’s latest film was always going to raise expectations – particularly as his last offering was the staggeringly well-received There Will Be Blood. Unfortunately for him, this is not the seminal masterpiece that he, or the audience, may have hoped for. Nevertheless, it is well made and good fun, and you can at the very least sit back and enjoy the razzle-dazzle.