I spent most of this week watching the 14 episodes of Firefly for the second time in my life, and I think I appreciated it even more this time around. The TV show was cancelled before all of the Season 1 episodes were shown, although they ultimately aired on The Science Channel.

The series failed for a number of reasons; the main one being that the episodes were not shown in the correct order, which was a stupid decision because the feature-length opening episode introduces all of the characters.

So why do I like it?

Firefly is a mix of action, drama, romance, and adventure. Although it's science fiction, the characters often talk like cowboys. Josh Whedon (Buffy, The Avengers) created the series, as well as directing three episodes and being involved as a writer.

The characters have real depth, but the development isn't rushed. The origin of the relationships and character traits are explained gradually as the series progresses. Many of the characters are mysterious, and will make you question their true motivations. But, through it all, each character always seems real. You'll meet a married couple, war veterans, a preacher, a doctor, a psychologically damaged girl, a genius engineer, an apparently dumb mercenary, and a high-class prostitute. It's fascinating to see the existing bonds between some of the characters, and the development of new bonds.

Episodes often show the crew taking on a task of some kind to earn their living. These assignments are often illegal, but can also become somewhat noble. If you are a fan of Whedon, you'll know that he uses humor regularly, and it's often present in Firefly. It can be pretty campy at times, but the writing is strong and it never comes across as stupid. Jaynestown is probably the funniest episode, and you'll understand why if you watch the episodes in the correct sequence.

I would have to say that I like every character, and that's rare for me with a cast of this size. The biggest mystery in the series surrounds River (Summer Glau), who plays the sister of the ship's doctor, Simon (Sean Maher). Their relationship is arguably the strongest within the group, and there's always a sense that River's story drives the entire series.

The Blu-ray includes all of the episodes, and the picture quality is good for the most part. Some of the darker images have lower quality, but the series is so good that you won't sit there criticizing the image. The special features include plenty of commentaries, as well as a making of feature, deleted scenes, and other assorted goodies.

If you do become hooked on the series, you'll need to watch Serenity (2005), which was a two-hour movie wrapping up the main story. That's a fantastic science fiction movie, but you'll appreciate it more if you know the characters well. Firefly runs for almost 11 hours, and you'll end up wishing for more. The movie gives the show a proper ending, and won't leave you hanging.

Buy it if you like Whedon, science fiction, or well-written characters. Incidentally, the set is housed in a regular Blu-ray case with room for the three discs, so it won't look out of place on your shelf.

*This review contains spoilers*

I would struggle to make a list of Woody Allen films that I don't like at all. I laugh at slapstick efforts like Sleeper, and it's easy to watch Annie Hall or Play it Again Sam from the same period. Recent efforts have changed in tone considerably and critics seem to love one effort and dislike the next. I'm one of the few people who enjoyed You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, and I believe that Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Midnight in Paris are two of the best films Allen has made in his entire career.

So how does To Rome With Love measure up?

I would say pretty well. As with most Allen efforts, the cast stands out. The film consists of four stories and each segment is worth your attention. I found myself laughing often, and that's quite rare.

One story stars Jerry (Allen) as an opera director who is ahead of his time. One of his productions was performed by actors dressed as white mice. He visits Rome with his wife (Judy Davis), to meet their daughter's fiance. Jerry's creative juices start flowing when he overhears the fiance's father singing in the shower and he attempts to persuade him to star in a future production. Although this segment has a rather predictable outcome, Allen has plenty of amusing dialogue.

Perhaps the most interesting of the stories is the one focusing on Jack (Eisenberg). He's an aspiring architect and lives with his girlfriend, Sally (Greta Gerwig). His life is turned upside down when Sally asks her friend, Monica (Page), to stay with them for a while. I have to admit that Ellen Page can do no wrong in my eyes. I was captivated by Juno and look forward to everything she is involved with. I was particularly eager to see what Allen would do with her in their first collaboration together. My only complaint is that this segment wasn't longer. Eisenberg plays a young neurotic type that Allen would have played in the 1970s. I find Eisenberg a little annoying at times, but I enjoyed his scenes here. The story was improved considerably by the presence of Alec Baldwin, who plays an older, wiser version of Jack. He gives him advice throughout, and his one-liners steal the show. This technique, which breaks the fourth wall, is one of the most enjoyable things about the film.

The third segment tells the story of two young newlyweds, Antonio and Milly. The couple invite Antonio's parents to meet Milly, but she has become lost in the city. Instead, they meet Anna (Cruz), who is a prostitute who was meant to meet someone else, but ended up at Antonio's door. Antonio panics and asks Anna to pose as his wife. This is a pretty funny sequence and it gets better when they encounter Milly, who unwittingly has an adventure of her own. This part of the story is in Italian, so be prepared to read subtitles.

The final story is the weirdest of the four, but it probably made me laugh more than the others. We meet Leopoldo (Roberto Benigni). He's boring. He does the same thing every day, wakes up at the same time, passes the same neighbors, and does the same boring tasks in his boring job. Even his wife looks bored when they are in bed together. One morning, Leopoldo is engulfed by photographers and journalists as he leaves for work. He assumes they have the wrong man, but they are fascinated by him and want to know the smallest details about his mundane existence. He is even asked to appear on TV. Bemused at first, Leopoldo warms to the task, eventually coming to appreciate his fame. Then, just as suddenly, it's gone. I'm sure Allen is commenting on the way the media reacts in modern society, making unremarkable people briefly famous. Did he have reality TV in mind, I wonder?

The whole mix is enjoyable and a pleasure to watch. Writing this, I wish I could see it again right now. One minor complaint is that each story was given a complete resolution and it felt a little cumbersome. I wouldn't have minded if the characters had continued on with their lives and left me wondering a little.

If you are a fan of Woody Allen, it's hard to believe that you won't like To Rome With Love. No, it's not as good as Midnight in Paris, but it's still better than most of the movies released this year. Don't be put off by the critics. See it and make up your own mind. Which European city will Allen take us to next year?

I don't know much about Alfred Hitchcock, other than the movies he left us with. That's why I was so interested in seeing this biographical drama. When I found out that Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren were involved, I was tempted to see "Hitchcock" the week it opened in theaters. I missed that opportunity, and the remainder of its run had one evening showing per day, so I eventually decided to wait for the Blu-ray. Reviews have been disappointing, but, as always, I trusted my instincts and decided to make up my own mind.

Hopkins doesn't try to mimic Hitchcock's voice exactly, but he does employ the deliberate mode of speech that most of us are familiar with. The makeup isn't entirely convincing either, but it's good enough to get the job done. Hopkins plays the director quite seriously, and I felt that Hitchcock's playful nature was a little underused.

What the movie attempts to do is take us back to the making of Psycho, which was released in 1960. Paramount's bosses were seeking something similar to North by Northwest, which had been released in 1959, but Hitchcock wanted to try something new. We learn how the project was chosen, and the sacrifices that Hitchcock and wife Alma made to make it happen. It's an interesting look at a brief time in a career which spanned more than half a century.

The movie gets a lot of things right; It looks and feels like 1960, Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Biel manage to resemble film stars of that era, and the casting in general is excellent.

I've been thinking about why reviews were so negative, and I've come to the conclusion that it is a movie which will appeal to a very specific audience. It's not a gripping drama, and there isn't much excitement. This is a story intended for movie buffs or fans of Hitchcock. If you want to know more about his character, and how movies are made, this has something for you. Character studies are hard to get right, and the movie is far from perfect. But I was engrossed for 90 minutes, and enjoyed learning how some of the events came to pass. The marketing for Psycho was inventive, and contributed to its early success. Some of that story is shown here.

The biggest source of conflict in the movie is Hitchcock's relationship with Alma. We learn something about their home life, and ultimately how important she was to his success. There's an explosive scene, just over an hour into the movie, in which Mirren's performance is elevated from good to great. It reminded me somewhat of the scene in Doubt, where Meryl Streep and Philip Seymour Hoffman finally confront each other.

Seeing "Hitchcock" makes me want to watch Psycho again, and I will do so in the near future. I've also been watching the excellent Bates Motel, starring Vera Farmiga and Freddie Highmore, and would recommend that as a good companion piece to Psycho if you're a fan.

"Hitchcock" works for its intended audience, but many people will find it lacking. It's a quiet movie, focusing on characters and details, rather than intensely dramatic scenes. I'm not sure what moviegoers were expecting. Perhaps they were hoping for a detailed look at Hitchcock's entire career? Lincoln fell flat for some viewers for similar reasons. If you enjoy seeing good acting, and have any interest in the man, "Hitchcock" is worth your time.

Overall score 4/5 (for it's intended audience)

If you grew up in England in the 70s or 80s, you'll understand that Brian Clough was something of a legend. His career as a footballer saw him score goals at a higher ratio than any other player in England, before an ACL injury forced him to retire. At the age of 30, he started a job in football management.

Clough's career began to take off when he became manager of Derby County in 1967. He brought in Peter Taylor as his assistant and the two turned the club into a successful team, gaining promotion to the top division in 1969. The title refers to Clough's hatred of Leeds United, after being snubbed by Leeds manager Don Revie during an FA Cup tie.

As unlikely as it may seem, Clough eventually went on to manage Leeds United in 1974, but he was sacked after 44 days.

The movie jumps between Clough's time at Leeds, and earlier in his career, showing events that led to his hatred of the team, and the reasons he became manager.

Director Tom Hooper treats Clough like the hero he was, but doesn't ignore the many mistakes he made during his long management career. Having grown up in the era myself, I feel that the movie does a great job creating the look and feel of the 70s. I remember many of the events, and always smile when I think of Brian Clough. He was outspoken and regarded himself as the best manager in the game. He wasn't afraid to criticize his employers, opposing managers, players, or the media. As a result, his interviews were always entertaining as he apparently didn't care what people thought of him.

Michael Sheen perfectly captures the spirit of the man, as well as the voice and the gestures. It's like watching a good impressionist with excellent acting ability. Sheen also worked with writer Peter Morgan on Frost/Nixon and The Queen, playing David Frost and Tony Blair. All three performances are noteworthy and worth your time.

Timothy Spall was a good choice for the role of Peter Taylor, and Hooper manages to convince us that the two were close friends for much of the time they worked together. Their relationship was more important than the relationships with their wives in some ways. Other notable performances come from Colm Meaney as Don Revie and Jim Broadbent as Derby County chairman, Sam Longson.

The story focuses on the effect Clough on those around him, and ends with a brief summary of what he went on to achieve. Although football is the reason all of this happened, the movie doesn't spend much time showing the players in action. It's more about management and the relationships that Clough formed with employers, colleagues, players and fans.

I can't imagine American audiences being very interested in the subject matter, but anyone who was a fan of English football in the 70s will love the nostalgic feel and the accuracy of Sheen's portrayal. It's not hard to see why Tom Hooper has been successful in recent years with The King's Speech and Les Misérables. It's clear that the man knows how to make entertaining movies.

Ben Campbell (Jim Sturgess) is an MIT student who finishes top in his classes and is applying for a scholarship after being accepted into Harvard Medical School. We see him being interviewed as he attempts to secure the $300,000 that will enable him to enroll. Unfortunately, he's one of 76 applicants, and his rivals possess credentials similar to his own. In order to win the scholarship, he must write an essay that will dazzle the professor making the final decision.

Ben's life experience is unremarkable. He has a crush on a fellow student who is apparently hopelessly out of his reach, and his friends are geeks. He's serious and doesn't seem to have any fun, such as dating or socializing. What could he possibly write about?

That all changes when he impresses one of his professors, Micky Rosa (Kevin Spacey), during a lecture. He's invited to become part of a team coached privately by Micky, but this has nothing to do with school. Micky teaches him how to count cards, and explains that the system is certain to beat the odds if it is correctly applied. They plan to go to Las Vegas and win enormous amounts of money. While that sounds unlikely, Micky insists that it's not gambling at all. After a visit from Jill (Kate Bosworth), at the store in which he earns $8 an hour, Ben eventually decides to join the team.

I'm sure that some of you are rolling your eyes. Can a system really beat the Vegas odds? Well, this story is based on true events, and the method of counting cards is surprisingly simple.

The title refers to both the best Blackjack hand, and the fact that Ben is about to become a 21-year-old. We see him learn how to keep the count. It begins at zero, and a point is added for cards between 2 and 5, while a point is subtracted if the dealer turns over a 10, Jack, Queen, King, or an Ace. Cards falling between 7 and 9 have no effect on the count.

The team consists of five students. Three sit at random tables to monitor the count. When the count is high, the odds favor the player over the house. The person then uses a prearranged signal and one of the remaining team members sits at the table and places large bets. A series of codewords is used to tell the high stakes player exactly what the count is. For example, "sweet" would mean that the count is +16, and highly favorable. The high stakes player then keeps track of the count and must have the discipline to quit when the odds are no longer favorable.

Sounds simple enough, right?

A large part of the movie is devoted to the action that takes place in Vegas. It's a glamorous lifestyle, completely different to Ben's Boston existence. If the movie works for you, you'll probably imagine yourself in that situation. The prospect of winning large amounts of money with very little risk is appealing. The risk portrayed in the movie comes in the form of casino security employee, Cole Williams (Fishburne). He's fully aware of the systems used by card-counters, as he used to do it himself. Although it's not illegal to count cards, casinos have the right to prevent people from playing at their tables. Williams has more violent methods than simply barring someone from playing, so he's the main villain in the story.

I wouldn't claim that 21 is original or unpredictable. You can probably guess some of the things that happen to Ben over the course of two hours. But, like many predictable stories, it's worth experiencing for the way in which it is told. If you are a fan of the main actors, find the thought of winning money appealing, or believe you have the abilities necessary to count cards yourself, you'll be thoroughly entertained. My favorite movie about cards is Rounders, but 21 is a close second.

I could have done without the flashbacks explaining the meaning every time a codeword was used, but that's a minor quibble.

People often think that I don't have a sense of humor. This is mainly due to the fact that I don't tell jokes, and I rarely find comedies funny. Slapstick humor only works if it involves Peter Sellers, or similar genius. Most comedies are so predictable that I see the jokes coming, and they aren't very funny when they arrive. But that doesn't mean that I don't like to laugh. I look for comedy within other genres because I find that humor works better for me when it is witty, and buried within a believable situation. That's why I turn to directors like Quentin Tarantino, the Coens, Martin McDonagh, Wes Anderson, and Woody Allen when I want to laugh.

Woody Allen's humor won't work for everyone. His earlier work did contain significant amounts of physical humor and jokes, but I think he's at his best when he writes more seriously. Vicky Cristina Barcelona falls into that category. It's an examination of human nature, more than a comedy, but there are still plenty of amusing scenes.

What qualities do you find attractive in a romantic partner? Allen asks that question, and uses Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) to show two very different views. Vicky seeks stability, and likes to know what to expect from her man. Cristina is more of a free spirit, and wants her partners to have a similar outlook on life. Vicky has her future carefully planned, and is due to marry, whereas Cristina is still exploring and trying to find exactly what it is she is looking for. The thing is, she isn't sure what that is.

Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) is an artist, and boldly asks the two women to take a trip with him. He openly says that they will all make love during the trip. This proposition is attractive to Cristina, but Vicky is shocked by his brazen approach and wants nothing to do with him. Needless to say, the three do eventually make the trip. Juan Antonio is not a conventional man, and still has feelings for ex-wife Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz). Like him, she's passionate and unpredictable, as well as being an artist herself.

The story uses a narrator, and it's a great vehicle for some of the humor. Allen assembles a fantastic cast, as always, and the principals all give strong performances. Other notable appearances come from Vicky's husband-to-be, Doug (Chris Messina), and Judy (Patricia Clarkson), who is an important part of the puzzle.

Penélope Cruz won an Oscar for her supporting role, and she certainly steals most of the scenes in which she appears. Her character is a catalyst for the events that unfold in the second half of the movie, and it's during this time that Allen raises the most questions about the motives of his characters.

The writing is superb and left me thinking about relationships I have been involved in, and also some of the relationships that I have watched develop between my friends and acquaintances. Human interactions are unpredictable, complicated, and fascinating, and Allen weaves an interesting tale featuring all of those elements.

If you enjoyed such movies as Closer, Midnight in Paris, (500) Days of Summer, or The Graduate, you'll probably find something to like in Vicky Cristina Barcelona. I think it's up there with Allen's most enjoyable work.

I have very little time for politicians, I'm not a fan of rugby, and I know very little about South Africa. However, I do think that Clint Eastwood makes a lot of important films, and I enjoy the acting of Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon. That's why I decided to watch Invictus when it was released on Blu-ray four years ago.

Mandela was occasionally in the news during my childhood, but events happening on another continent meant very little to me as a young boy. As an adult, I have come to appreciate people who sacrificed much of their lives in an attempt to change the way people think. If you connected with Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, try to imagine a similar scenario in the modern world.

Mandela campaigned against apartheid, and was imprisoned for his actions in 1963. He spent 18 of his 27 years in prison on Robben Island, where he contracted tuberculosis. As I write this review, he's in hospital with pneumonia at the age of 94.

Invictus shows some of the challenges faced by Mandela when he became South Africa's first black president in 1994. He defied expectations at every turn. An early scene gives us a clue about the man as he calls together his staff. Some of them are white, and expecting to be fired, but Mandela urges them to stay and continue to serve their country. He wants to forgive those who imprisoned him, and those who hate black South Africans. He realized that he was in a position to lead by example, and that it wasn't the time to settle old scores. Freeman's portrayal provides insight into Mandela's character, and shows us why he was loved by the people with whom he interacted.

Racism is one of the most dangerous things in existence, and I believe that it will always be with us in some form. There is no logic in hating someone because of their color or origin, but we are still surrounded by people who do just that. I think it's incredibly ignorant to continue to hold such beliefs in modern society, but I won't turn this review into a debate about racism. I mention it because it's important to frame the story, and appreciate what Mandela was trying to do.

So why is rugby an integral part of the story?

When Mandela took office, South Africa had already been chosen to host the rugby world cup a year later. Mandela decided to use the occasion to help to unite South Africans in a common cause. Rugby had always been a game revered by white South Africans, while black South Africans preferred soccer. In fact, the black population frequently cheered for whichever team was playing their national team as a form of protest. Overcoming that level of hatred proved to be quite a challenge.

Matt Damon plays South African Springbok captain, Francois Pienaar. He leads a team that is suffering from lack of belief in its own ability. There's a definite parallel between Mandela's efforts to unite the country, and Pienaar's task of uniting his team, the fans, and the media. Mandela meets him to discuss the importance of performing well in the world cup, and the two talk about leadership techniques.

Invictus is an engaging story which appeals as a historical drama more than a movie about sports. You don't need to know anything about rugby in order to appreciate the story. Eastwood has constructed a film that deals with the weighty subject matter in a way that we can all understand. Freeman was deservedly nominated for his performance, and Damon is convincing as a rugby player.

Films like this may be considered too idealistic by many, but it works for me. I realize that uniting a country is more difficult than the events portrayed on the screen over the course of two hours. What Invictus does is encourage me to think beyond my immediate surroundings, and appreciate some of the things faced by people living in other countries. It's not the best film ever made about politics or sports, but it's definitely worth your time if you want to broaden your horizons.

Are you a fan of Christopher Nolan? His impressive filmography includes Memento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, The Prestige, The Dark Knight, Inception, and The Dark Knight Rises. But his first feature was Following, and I imagine that there are plenty of Nolan fans who haven't got around to seeing it. My first viewing was just a few months ago, shortly after the Criterion Blu-ray release.

Why do I want to review it?

Well, one reason is that I wanted to talk about the first first film made by one of the best directors working today. Another incentive was the presence of actual ideas. Following is unpredictable, and does not use proven formulas. It works because it is genuinely interesting and compelling.

You have probably never heard of the actors involved. The two principals haven't had much of a career since, but I enjoyed their performances. The film is full of mysteries and revelations, so I am not going to talk about everything that happens. Instead, I'll limit most of my comments to things we learn in the opening 10 minutes.

The film grabbed my attention after two minutes during the opening narration by Bill (Jeremy Theobald), who is the main character. He tells us that he's unemployed, and frequently bored and lonely. In order to combat his boredom, he decides to start following people at random. In his own mind, he's an aspiring writer, although he probably views himself that way to justify his miserable existence. He's interested in people and what motivates them. When he's following someone, he has a certain set of rules, such as not pursuing women along dark alleys at night. He's a keen observer, but not a predator of any kind. He follows people of any gender, watches what they do, and then leaves.

Bill's problems begin when he breaks one of his biggest rules, and decides to follow the same person more than once. The man calls himself Cobb (Alex Haw), and after noticing that he's being followed, he confronts Bill and questions him. Cobb dresses, acts, and sounds like a successful man, which is in total contrast to Bill's scruffy appearance and less formal way of speaking.

Minor spoiler coming:

Cobb allows Bill to look inside the bag he's carrying, and Bill realizes that it's full of goods that are presumably stolen. The two form a kind of partnership, and start to do burglaries together.

I'm not going to reveal any more specific information, but I want to talk generally about the plot structure, and the overall feel of the film. The plot is fragmented, jumping around in time. If you have seen Memento, you'll recognize the style immediately. Bill's appearance changes, and is always a clue as to the timeline. As he's a writer, there's also a strong possibility that some of the events are things that he is imagining for a future story.

Another key element is the music. It reminds me a little of Angelo Badalementi's work, and it wouldn't be too out of place in a David Lynch film. The film was shot in black and white with an aspect ratio of 1.37:1, so be prepared for that. Following was originally shot using 16 mm film, giving the piece a raw feel which suits the story, but the Criterion presentation is superb. The Blu-ray also includes the option to use an updated 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio mix, as well as the original mono. Like the Memento DVD, the special features offer the chance to see events in chronological order.

After viewing the film a second time, I noticed that events had a different meaning because I was in full possession of the facts. Seemingly random encounters have more meaning because some of the people are recognizable. You'll probably ask yourself a lot of questions the first time you watch the events unfold. How does the character know that? Why is he doing that? Why is she acting that way? All of those questions will be answered by the end of the film, so trust that Nolan knows what he is doing and enjoy the ride. The revelations in the final 20 minutes will make you question everything you've seen up to that point, and then smile as you understand the logic.

Following cost around $6,000 to make, and grossed just $43,000, but Nolan hasn't made a weak film yet and this deserves to be seen. Although it runs for just 69 minutes, it feels as though it's crammed with ideas. The acting, story, dialogue and music blend together well, and Following is something that you'll probably want to see many times if you appreciate Nolan's style. Buy the Criterion and check it out for yourself.

Overall score 4.5/5

If you're a fan of Jennifer Lawrence after seeing The Hunger Games and Silver Linings Playbook, you might be interested in seeing the film that put her on the map. She gained a Best Actress nomination for her performance in Winter's Bone, and after seeing it for the second time, I have come to the conclusion that it may be a better performance than her 2013 Oscar-winning effort. I say that because of the demands of the role, and not because anything was lacking in her Oscar-winning performance.

Winter's Bone is an incredibly bleak story. Ree Dolly (Lawrence) is 17, and her very existence is a challenge. Her father is missing and about to stand trial for manufacturing crystal meth. Unfortunately, he put up their house as collateral for his bail, and it will be taken from her within a week if he fails to show up. Ree's mother rarely talks and is incapable of taking care of her and her young brother and sister. As a result, Ree is responsible for the entire family.

In order to resolve her situation, she must find her father. There's also the chance that he's dead, and she would have to prove it to the authorities if that turned out to be the case. So, Ree sets off to discover the truth. The story takes place in the Ozarks, and everyone she questions is aggressive, dangerous, guarded, or a combination of all three. It's risky to even pursue her investigation with some of those she encounters also mixed up in the illegal drug trade.

If you thought Lawrence was plucky in The Hunger Games, you'll be amazed by the things she has to deal with in Winter's Bone. This world is real, and director Debra Granik doesn't pull any punches. The result is a tense thriller, but it's not an action movie. The tension is more in the style of Hitchcock because we know that Ree is in danger the whole time.

The other outstanding performance in the film comes from John Hawkes as Teardrop. He doesn't say much, but his character oozes menace every time he appears. He also earned an Oscar nomination, and it's hard to argue with that decision. If you saw him as Mark in The Sessions, you might find it difficult to believe that Teardrop is played by the same actor.

Lawrence is off to a strong start with two Oscar nominations and a win by the age of 22. After seeing her play Ree Dolly, I think it's clear that she has a lot more range than most young actresses, and it will be interesting to see what she does over the next few years.

Winter's Bone is a scary place to visit, but it's a riveting piece of drama with superb acting. It didn't find a large audience in theaters, but the Blu-ray experience is a good one. Don't watch it if gritty realism isn't your thing.

Some movies are hard to watch, and The Road belongs in that category. But I have chosen to review it because it deserves an audience.The director is John Hillcoat, who was responsible for The Proposition and Lawless. Like both of those movies, this one features music composed by Nick Cave. The bleak nature of the story is a perfect fit for Cave's music.

As you might expect, the movie didn't have much of an impact at the box office. I suppose that most people are reluctant to expose themselves to such a sad story?

When you strip it right down, the film is about the love a father has for his son. We never learn their names; any references made simply refer to The Man (Mortensen) and The Boy (Smit-McPhee). These two actors carry the movie, but we occasionally see people they encounter, and flashbacks of The Man's wife (Theron). Her role is small, but the scenes are effective, and help to frame the story.

There are many reasons to see this movie.

Viggo Mortensen delivers a superb performance that failed to receive the Oscar recognition it deserved. Perhaps the voters never saw the movie either?

We learn that The Man's wife couldn't face life in a world where everything was dying, so he is solely responsible for his son. The reason for the apocalypse is only hinted at, and mentions a sudden light. It leaves the skies permanently gray, and everything covered in a layer of ash. Trees, plants, and insects are dead or dying. The only life remaining comes in the form of a few humans, and many of them aren't too fussy about how they survive.

Perhaps this is what the world might eventually look like if Earth was struck by an asteroid?

The movie could be viewed as a metaphor for life itself. When we face terrible events in our own lives, most of us choose to weather the storm and survive to the best of our abilities. Imagine a life where there was nothing left to achieve. What would you do? The Man decides that he will take his son to the coast. Perhaps things will be better there, and maybe there will be something left alive.

What makes The Road an astounding story is the writing. Cormac McCarthy's book is strangely moving. It succeeds because of the intensity of the brief dialog between father and son. The son asks a lot of questions, and often wonders whether they are the good guys. The father explains as well as he can, and his son accepts all of his words without question.

The Road is nothing like McCarthy's No Country for Old Men, and isn't designed to be a piece of entertainment. It's a study on human character, and what drives us to exist at all. I admire post-apocalyptic stories when they are done well, and this is about as realistic as it gets. If you enjoy seeing how society breaks down when money is meaningless and food is scarce, you'll find the story interesting. If you are a parent, I would be surprised if you aren't moved at the love between father and son.

What would you do to protect the life of your child? How would you justify your actions? Could you kill and still be a good person?

I won't reveal how the story ends, or comment on whether it is uplifting or as sad as the rest of the movie. That's for you to discover. All I will see is that The Road is a significant achievement, and brings to life a book that seemed almost impossible to film. The cinematography is particularly convincing.

If you are a fan of The Grey, The Mist, Children of Men, or The Stand, there's a fair chance you'll find something interesting in The Road. Don't watch it if you are expecting an action movie.

The Blu-ray offers a strong presentation, but it won't dazzle you because the colors are deliberately muted to fit the story. You need to be in the right mood to watch The Road, but it's worth it when that mood strikes. You'll never take another meal for granted.