What makes Entre les murs different from the classic classroom movies is that all its characters are ultimately, deeply flawed. On one hand we have the children who at ages 13-15 already carry the stigma of their social status, of their ethnicity, of being judged before they are listened to. They are not just poor victims of circumstances though. They have a choice and a window of opportunity which some take, but most ignore. On the other hand, the teachers. They are, by the nature of their job idealists at heart but, after a few years of "fighting" troublesome pupils with little aspirations and no apparent respect for anything, become more cynical by the day.

And amongst them, Francois is the both the biggest idealist and perhaps the most flawed of all. He is rarely phased by his students insolence. He turns it onto them and uses it as a pretext to teach lessons in grammar and vocabulary. He teases back his students knowing that the most important thing is to get them involved in the class. He continues to learn from his students as much as they do from him. However, he is only human. And the kids are... real kids. Even though they may respect him at times, they will continue fighting, arguing, both amongst themselves and with him - after all at age 14, it's always back to kids vs. teachers. Francois can lose his temper and say things a teacher should never say. That only increases the rift. Some may be hurt in the process. But life moves on. Francois loves his kids and never wants to give up on them. They appreciate him but how often can a teacher change someones life? Maybe he will help a few. But there will be no standing on the desk screaming "Oh Captain, my Captain!" as a sign of loyalty to his efforts.

Francois Begaudeau plays the character that he created for his best-selling novel, inspired from his own life. The students are real students and the Cantet frames The Class almost as a documentary, filming through the entire course of a school year. All that, adds up to a Palme d'Or at Cannes and to one of the best movies of 2008.

However, RocknRolla, while getting closer to Ritchie's successful early movies and having a great cast (how refreshing it is to see Tom Wilkinson as a big mobster), does not really manage to even compete with some of the newer entries in the genre that clearly also draw their inspiration from Ritchie's early work: Lucky Number Slevin or Layer Cake.

Finally, if you're a fan of Ritchie or the genre, then definitely watch RocknRolla. Otherwise make sure you don't miss this year's great In Bruges.

Looking forward however, to next year's Ritchie project: Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law. That should be an interesting departure for Ritchie!

Oh, you will say, he's already made up his mind that he will hate this movie, before even watching it. No, not at all. And if nothing else, for no other reason that it was produced by two important man that passed away this year, as the movie was wrapping up: Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack.

So, why should we watch The Reader? I'd say watch it, because it is the kind of movie which, if it was entirely produced in Germany, it would have been easily considered on par with and in the tradition of Sophie Scholl or The Downfall. It tells the story of Hanna Schmitz, an illiterate German woman, who rather volunteers to work as guard in concentration camps and later risk life imprisonment than reveal her lack of education. Michael Berg (Fiennes) is a young lawyer who, given his previous love affair with Hanna, manages to uncover her secret and is faced with a rather impossible dilemma: should he reveal the secret, realizing that Hanna would rather be accused of multiple murders than live in shame for her lack of education?

There are no winners in this movie in the end. Both Hanna and Michael are characters whose lives end up far from happiness. There is no feelgood sensation after the movie but, there is also no major lesson learned. It is simply the story of two tormented, ill-adapted souls. Winslet turns quite possibly one of her best acting performances as she blends into the background, becoming this low-intelect, hard working, proud woman who takes her job serious. Sometimes though even a simple camp guard job can lead to really hard decisions for Hanna: what do you do when your prisoners are locked in a burning building? Do you let them out and risk them running away? Or do you keep them in?

Rachel Getting Married is not a bad movie, but it could have been of those "little movie that could" which would deserve a mention on everyone's top 10 list, except it just falls short for me. If you can ignore all the contrivances though, you may consider it a small gem with plenty of drama and enough (dry) humor. Regardless, watch it for a glimpse at what Hathaway has to offer in the future.

Happy-Go-Lucky is a movie about wide-eyed, perennial optimism. And Sally Hawkins embodies this spirit with all her being, in a performance that earned her multiple praise and awards, including a Golden Globe. While everyone is discovering her now, Hawkins has over 20 roles in her career, including previous collaborations with Mike Leigh (Vera Drake). What remains to be seen is if she can use this role to propel her career or she will become typecast in quirky, romantic comedies. We hope for the former.

And I was right - there is really not much to the story other than what you see in the trailer. Thankfully for Doubt, however, there is a lot more nuance than the trailer shows when it comes to the acting. Streep may go back to a repertoire of tricks, gestures and face expressions that she has mastered down to an art, but she can still make a character powerful, interesting and even somewhat nuanced. Hoffman has the same talent; Adams is growing into a talented actress proving that her stand-out performance in Junebug was no accident; Finally Viola Davis makes pain and desperation visible in her short but powerful scenes.

In the end though, Doubt doesn't quite reach a conclusion and Sister Aloysius's final doubting of her actions does not have nearly the impact that the movie tries to give it. In the end, we're not sure of anything either as viewers. But, at the same time, there are no life-altering decisions made, everyone more or less moves on with their lives and noone is truly affected. In this context, the humbleness of having doubt and the need for not acting without proof is not presented as anything more than a philosophical issue.

A picture is worth a thousand words, so if this doesn't convince you to see the movie, then you probably should skip it:

In this context, Slimane Beiji, the 61 year old father of four, starts out as the focal point of a slice of life family drama - laid off from a ship construction yard cutting back on their workforce, he decides to pick up an abandoned fish-boat and turn it into an ethnic restaurant to serve his ex-wife's delicious couscous. But, despite the title, this is not about the grain, the couscous or the fish that he always gets from his friends fishermen and brings home to all his kids families. It is about a man whose joy in life is brought by his grandchildren and who cannot rest a moment without thinking of what more he can do to help his family out. As the movie goes on, at a slow pace, we get an increasing sense of fate at work and we see Slimane gradually become an iconic tragic figure one that could have been extracted straight out of Greek classics.

Habib Boufares' performance as Slimane is astounding in its subdued expression, while young Hafsia Herzi, one of the only professional actors in the movie, is a beauty to watch as Rym, the daughter of Slimane's mistress who sees him as her real father.

The movie's ending may seem a bit long and somewhat contrived, but in reality it transitions from pure drama into stylized tragedy. Every single moment in the first 3/4 of the movie is as real as it gets and every shot in the final part is a carefully constructed statement. Easily one of the best movies of the year

However, it is not Johansson (Cristina) nor Hall who plays the other title character, Vicky, who carry the movie. Acting-wise, Vicky and Cristina are merely the pretext for introducing bohemian, free spirited painter Juan Antonio (Bardem) and his vulcanic ex Maria Elena (Cruz).

But while one relationship may be the clear centerpiece of the movie, Allen manages to give equal attention to a range of relationships and quests for finding one's true calling in love or in life. Vicky centers her life around order and careful planning. She is convinced she found love and is about to get married to a very nice, successful man, buy together a house, settle into the security of the life she always imagined for herself. Cristina is the exact opposite of Vicky. She knows she has never encountered love but continues to seek fulfillment in anything that is exciting and edgy in life, as well as trying (in vain) to find her artistic voice: writing, photography, directing - a voice that also tries to express the despair of searching the intangible, ineffable love. Vicky's aunt has her own small drama - basically serving as a mirror into the future for Vicky should he follow her safe plans.

Juan Antonio and Maria Elena on the other hand, they show another kind of drama: they have found each other, true soulmates destined to share their lives, yet incapable of doing it so in harmony. They know what they mean to each other, yet the passion is so strong that it devours them. If Bardem is a continuous pleasure to watch, in his witty, insidiously seductive role, Penelope Cruz delivers another performance that steals every scene that she is part of, with intense delivery yet the same maturity that we saw from her in Almodovar's Volver.

VIcky Cristina Barcelona is part guilty pleasure, part comedy, part meditation on the struggle of finding one's identity and a satisfying relationship. Who else but Woody Allen would be more of an expert on the subject?

Does this make Wall-E the best animated movie ever? Surely not. It is perhaps too styled for that and it lacks the genuine entertainment value that The Incredibles has. It may prove also too slow for the more impatient kids out there. But it does show us (once again) that animation is much more than just for kids and that Hollywood actors could be one day replaced by CGI counterparts that don't even have to look human to express emotion.

In Bruges is so filled with wit, dry dark humour and foul language to fill three movies. You can watch every trailer that's out there and you're far from worrying that you've seen all the jokes as is the case with many comedies these days. And there's no lack of action either. And there is a pretty serious message in there too... Well that's perhaps something we'd rather do without. But all in all, In Bruges is still the most solid and unique gangster movie since Snatch, even though we've had other good efforts with Layer Cake, Revolver, Lucky Number Slevin or this year's Rocknrolla.

The result unfortunately, is nothing close to Sin City and we are mostly left wondering whether Sin City 2 will be able to survive after Spirit's failure. Where does The Spirit fail? Is the material too dated given that the comics were written in the 40's and 50's? It's not that. I think the difference is that Sin City is a graphic novel while Spirit, as successful as it has been in print, is a comic. Spirit may be staged as a noir story, but is mostly filled with cheesy dialogue and sometimes slapstick humor. The characters are not meditating on the meaning of life, but rather on the random facts of daily life in a fictional corrupt city where reality and fantastic meet occasionally. In this context, Sin City's visual style feels out of place lending a sense of seriousness and existential drama to a story that has no intention of having any of that.

The Spirit would've been much better if visually closer to the old comic style, with bright blue jackets, green dresses and yellow shirts. There would have been a better sense of fun about it and the expectations would have matched the result much better. If you're only looking for a comic-book adaptation you may enjoy Miller's rendition. If you're looking for more, you'll be disappointed.

The interviews are part of history now and anyone can watch them. But of course, very few would do that these days. This is where Peter Morgan comes in and, continuing the trend he already established for himself with The Queen and The Last King of Scotland, brings this bit of history that he found powerful and fascinating to the larger audiences. In 2006 his play Frost/Nixon debuts in London with Sheen and Langella as the title characters. The following year, the play moves to Broadway, retaining its leads. One year later, Morgan partners with Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13) to bring the story to the big screen, under strict conditions that Sheen and Langella retain their roles. I don't think it would have worked any other way.

Langella is not necessarily a Nixon look-alike. But that's irrelevant to what he is achieving as he just embodies Nixon's personality and his convictions. While the story is told from Frost's perspective, we see Frost being clearly outmatched by the president's presence and personality. If Frost manages to "win" in these interviews is likely because Nixon is too tired and concedes in the end. Sheen on the other hand is no stranger to holding his own in the presence of overwhelming figures. In Morgan's The Queen he plays prime minister Tony Blair facing the powerful Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth.

David Frost himself, reacted somewhat offended by the way he is portrayed in the movie, claiming he had more stature and credibility at the time of the interview than the script portrays him. Perhaps. But Morgan never claims to have written a documentary. It is a movie re-telling a fascinating, real story. And with the power of two great actors at his side, he can hardly go wrong. This is a movie that everyone interested in modern history should watch.

Children, grandchildren, spouses and lovers, love and hate triangles, quirky people are all present. But above all what we see are estranged people, all coping with various issues from their past or childhood in ways that fit their characters - some are in denial, others are posing as victims, others are trying to be the perennial peacemakers.

This is not the Christmas Tale you want to take your kids to, or even one that you want to spend a relaxed holiday evening watching. There is a lot of tribute paid to the film world in A Christmas Tale, so this is a movie for movie buffs, for those that enjoy subtle hints and references and of course, dark humour. But even so, I found it too void to care about what happens to anyone, over the top in every detail, yet muddling the clear drama with the dry humor and adding up to... not so much. If you do like Wes Anderson's style though, give it a shot since it could be the movie for you.

As she sees her already fragile balance unraveling, she is desperately trying to find her dog, fix her car and otherwise find the strength to keep going. Because going back doesn't seem to be an option. We don't get to see what life exactly she is running from, but it is fairly obvious that she does not have much of a place back home. The movie doesn't tell us much about anything in fact. Yet we can figure things out quite easily: Wendy doesn't know where she belongs but she's trying to find it out. Gradually she figures some things out. Others perhaps she'll figure as she continues down her trip. We'll never know though.

An interesting slice of life movie, but such a thin slice that it can barely hold even butter.