My top five cinema pet peeves

What kind of a world do we live in where people cannot silently watch a movie? We've all paid $10 to sit in a darkened theatre and catch the latest release - we're all in this together. All I'm asking is that people do nothing for two hours. Consider that for a moment. Do nothing. Just exist. That's all I ask. Is that too much trouble?

Watching Defiance last weekend, it occurred to me that people seem to be completely unable to grasp such a straightforward concept. It's only for 120 minutes; a microscopic slice from the pie of life.

Admittedly, we watched the film in the basement screening room of the Princess Theatre; the acoustics of this tiny cinema meant that a pin dropping sounded like the roof was caving in. Even so, the noises eminating from some of my fellow cinemagoers could have been heard in the vast vaccuum of outer space.

Based on this experience, I present my top 5 motion picture pet peeves.

1. Talking. Obviously, this is the most common gripe, but also the easiest to solve. Step 1: close your mouth. Step 2: keep it closed. The couple behind us in Defiance were nattering away throughout the film as if they were in their living room, not surrounded by 80 complete strangers. There are several different breeds of cinema-talkers:

• The Line Repeaters: If a character says something you like or find amusing, there's no need to repeat it. We were all there. We all heard it. And it sounded a lot better coming from the trained actor onscreen than it did spilling from your gob.
• The Plot Clarifiers: Possibly the most excusable reason for cinema-talking, but there needs to be a line drawn. Let's say, three clarifications per film. A great twist in a movie can be completely cheapened when the dunce two rows in front of you exclaims, "Ohhhh... it's the guy from the start!" two minutes after the fact.
• The Subtitle Readers: Unbelievable. Do you sit at home and read a 600-page novel aloud? Do you flip through the Safeway catalogue and recite the specials to strangers? Do you vocalise every road sign you pass? It's like being stuck with someone who considers unneccesary narration a hobby.
• The Irrelevant Conversationalists: These are the ones who, I theorise, aren't even aware they're in a movie theatre. Physically, they're fifteen seats along in the tenth row of Cinema 2. Mentally, they're sitting at home, drinking at the pub, wandering around a shopping mall, or any number of places where it's perfectly acceptable to discuss their new washing machine, or verbally remind themselves that they have to call Frank later on, or any other pointless exchange that really doesn't need to be shared at all, let alone during a movie.

2. Using a phone. Fortunately, people seem to have finally paid attention to the notices prior to a film that suggest they ought to put their mobile phone on silent. Unfortunately, those same people seem oblivious to the fact that when they flip open their phone to send a text during a crucial part of a movie - as some girl did during the scene-setting pre-titles sequence of Quantum of Solace - they may as well have brought a full-size lighthouse that desperately tries to steal your attention from the screen. And you just know the contents of that text are pitifully unimportant.

3. Noisy eating. Who decided that popcorn was the food of choice for cinemas? I bet whoever it was reads subtitles. Crunch, crunch, crunch. Scrunch. That was the sound of someone wrestling open a bag of M&Ms with all the grace of a human being who hasn't developed opposable thumbs. That may just be the crux of the problem. The thing is, it is possible to eat popcorn and candy quietly. I propose a system whereby one needs to pass a simple exam that entails sitting in a soundproof room with a small popcorn, a packet of Starburst and a small Coke (crucially, with a straw). If you can polish those off without unwrapping, chewing or slurping over a predetermined volume, congratulations: you've earnt your candy bar licence.

4. Inappropriate laughter. Up until Defiance, I probably would have lumped this in with talking. But Defiance changed all that. Following a bit of light-hearted banter between a couple of characters that prompted some wry laughter from the audience, one character solemnly lamented - by subtitles - that "Jews are only good for dying", at which point the woman behind me continued to laugh. I'm sorry; were you following? Do you understand those subtitles you've been reading aloud?

5. Leaving rubbish behind. Not specifically related to cinemagoing, but still, possibly one of the laziest displays I've ever seen. The effort required to carry an empty cup and a plastic wrapper to the nearest bin is unlikely to burn off the calories consumed from the products they once contained, but every little bit counts, right?

Existence. And a little bit of cleaning up after yourself. I'm not too demanding, am I?

Defiance (2008)

As far as true stories go, the events that inspired Edward Zwick's Defiance are incredible. The film, based on Nechama Tec's Defiance: The Bielski Partisans, tells the little-known tale of three Jewish brothers who escape Nazi-occupied Poland and proceed to lead a resistance against the Nazis during World War II. It's a piece of history that's well worth exploring in a feature film. Indeed, one of Defiance's major coups is that it's a story that presents the Jews as more than just passive victims: the Bielski brothers and their ever-increasing group of Jewish partisans are testament to man's unwavering will to survive. It's moving stuff.

Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell head up a virtually flawless cast. Craig's Tuvia is precisely the kind of role the actor appears to be relishing in light of his new-found fame: after exacting revenge upon the man responsible for his father's death, the eldest Bielski brother firmly believes that avoiding conflict in order to stay alive is the best course of action. Schreiber's Zus, however, remains adamant that the Jews should be fighting back, ultimately choosing to side with the Russians. Bell is a real standout as teen Asael, whose coming-of-age was worthy of further exploration: it's his finest performance to date.

Unfortunately, the strong cast is held back by a script that never allows us to connect with the Bielski brothers, and some fairly bland direction from Zwick. Some scenes stand out – there's a brutal sequence in which a Nazi is captured by the partisans who proceed to exact justice – and there's the occasional image that's potentially iconic: a wide-angled shot of the partisans wading through wetlands is a hint at what could have been. It may have been an intentional decision to shoot the picture with little flair in order to depict the events as true-to-life. However, the low-key approach is at odds with some decidedly Hollywood-esque heroics, rendering Defiance's dramatic sequences and action scenes as a bit flat, despite some impressive cinematography. The resultant effect means the characters' plights never feel as grave as they ought to. The movie is also sadly over-scored, with James Newton Howard's Oscar-nominated soundtrack weakening several key dramatic moments that would have played better without music.

Defiance's forest setting (Lithuania doubles for Poland) is impressively used, as the story spans roughly one year of time. Throughout autumn, Tuvia remains cognisant of food rationing during Poland's harsh winter. The elements and landscape are also adversaries with which the partisans need to contend.

As is standard for a "true story" adaptation, Defiance closes with a series of title cards revealing what became of the characters' real-life counterparts. It's only during these final seconds that the viewer really grasps the sheer scope of the story they just witnessed. For this alone, Defiance is a captivating tale worth seeing. One just wishes the film itself conveyed this sense of awe.

Wikipower

If anyone doubts the power of user-generated encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, this video is for you. Social media blog davefleet.com points to a clip showing the first two hours of development of the entry on US Airways Flight 1549, which crash-landed in the Hudson River last week. The page was created within minutes of the plane landing in the river.

We're now at the point where "Wikipedia" has entered our vocabulary alongside "Google" and "YouTube" as commonly-used terms (I use all three websites so often that I completely take them for granted). It's essential to remember precisely where Wikipedia's content originates, and that its veracity is far from guaranteed, but Wikipedia's goal of creating a free database of knowledge for everyone is truly admirable.

This video is a startling reminder of its growing power.

The Swarm (2004)

"It's plain to see that humanity is going down the drain. We used to be at the centre of the universe until Copernicus moved it. We were at the pinnacle of creation until Darwin pushed us off. Then Freud claimed that our reason is in thrall to the unconscious. At least we were still the only civilised species on the planet – but now the yrr are trying to kill us."

It was a photo finish, but I've finally completed Frank Schätzing's sci-fi epic, The Swarm... just two days before I leave Canada for Australia (I refused to lug this weighty tome across continents).

The bestselling German novel sees humanity face-to-face with an alien force called the yrr, which has been lying hidden at the bottom of the ocean for millions of years. Fed up with humanity's shoddy treatment of the world's oceans, the yrr manipulate the planet's marine creatures to launch a relentless assault on mankind.

The Swarm may well be one of the best holiday reads I've ever picked up – my only advice is that, at almost 900 pages, it better be a long holiday. That said, rarely does The Swarm feel unworthy of its length. It's an eco-thriller rich in scientific detail, enjoyable character development and thought-provoking musings on numerous topics, including evolution, technology, politics and religion. At times, the discussions within the book are so profound that, even if they merely serve as diversions so that the author can explore a particular topic, the reader remains nevertheless compelled.

Schätzing's ability to seamlessly mix educational exchanges, vivid action sequences and detailed technological descriptions are part of the reason why this Michael Crichton-esque thriller works so well. Amid some epic scenes of destruction (the pages-long natural disaster that closes The Swarm's first part is brilliantly topped by a single sentence detailing further devastation), the author juggles the development of over 12 main characters with ease. One hopes that the makers of the upcoming film adaptation are equally deft.

Schätzing is unafraid to put forward his views on these topics explored within The Swarm (there's a fascinating, but thinly-veiled exploration of the effects the yrr's discovery has on religious groups, while the US government's actions are a transparent take on George W. Bush's politics), but the author's views shouldn't be too much of a deterrence, particularly if they don't run contrary to your own.

Most successful is the slow, suspenseful establishing events, which capture a genuinely scary sense of what lies beneath the world's oceans, somewhere we know little about. The Swarm's climax might be a bit action-heavy (its worthy political intrigue ultimately gives way to some pretty incredulous character motivations), but Schätzing admirably avoids anything approaching a complete explanation of the mysterious phenomenon that wreaks havoc on the world's coasts.

A highly-recommended read for fans of environmental thrillers.

The Dark oversight

The Oscar nominations are in and there aren't many surprises among the contenders.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button deservingly leads the field with 13 nominations, including Best Picture, Best Director (David Fincher) and Best Actor (Brad Pitt).

Best Picture favourite Slumdog Millionaire – a film I've been hanging out to see – comes in second with 10 nominations. Given how it swept the Golden Globes, expect it to put in a good showing here.

Meanwhile, biopic Milk landed eight nominations, putting it in third place alongside Christopher Nolan's triumphant reinvention of the Batman saga, The Dark Knight.

What's disappointing is that, despite an enviable haul of awards nominations and wins, The Dark Knight's Oscar nods are almost exclusively in the technical categories.

The blockbuster comic book flick became a record-setting global phenomenon when released last year, leaving a wave of Oscar buzz in its wake. However, The Dark Knight's lacklustre showing at the Globes, which saw the film land just a single nomination and win for Heath Ledger's awe-inspiring turn as the Joker, seemingly slowed the picture's Oscar momentum.

It's a rare occasion, but the Academy is not entirely averse to acknowledging record-shattering blockbusters. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, perhaps the best parallel for The Dark Knight, managed to take home all 11 Oscars for which it was nominated (including Best Picture and Best Director). That same year, Johnny Depp was nominated for his first nuanced performance as Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

Aside from a couple of surprising but worthy nods, including Robert Downey Jr's fantastic performance in Tropic Thunder and a screenplay nom for In Bruges (Colin Farrell's Golden Globe-winning turn somehow failed to be nominated), this year's contenders are typically po-faced. I was also holding out hope that Pixar's heartwarming WALL•E would defy the odds and also score a Best Picture nomination; alas, it wasn't to be, despite the film landing five nominations, including Best Animated Film and Best Original Screenplay.

The Dark Knight is a sure bet for Best Supporting Actor and most of its technical nods, but, like Return of the King before it, a picture with this much atmosphere, a phenomenal cast, some gorgeous cinematography and direction with such obvious respect for its source material, deserves that kind of recognition. It's not quite worthy of a win, but definitely of recognition.

To fans of the film: you have one last chance to relive The Dark Knight in the ultimate format; Warner Bros. are re-releasing the picture in IMAX cinemas around the world from tomorrow.

To the Academy: why so serious?

Lost: Season 5 (2009)

Spoilers for Lost: Season 4

Can you believe it? Lost is back tonight!

Following its groundbreaking first year, Lost settled in for a bumpy but thoroughly entertaining season and a half. It was then that the show's producers announced that Lost will end in 2010. With just three curtailed seasons remaining, a noticeable shift into focus occurred, and our favourite castaways were no longer wandering aimlessly through the jungle encountering endless random island weirdness.

Lost is in the unique position of being a blockbuster television programme with an incredibly intricate storyline. I think many people were turned off the show during its second and third years, fearing that Lost would become a victim of the kind of protracted, meandering storytelling that ultimately caused The X-Files' flame to flicker out. But ever since the end date announcement, Lost has confidently propelled forward, providing answers to existing mysteries, and tantalising new ones. This viewer has faith that there will be a worthwhile resolution at the end of it all.

For those who gave up on Lost, there's no excuse not to come back. While it makes no apologies if you miss an episode, and the show's producers have openly admitted that those who have never watched the show will be, erm, lost, during the fifth season opener, viewers who do their homework and fervently follow the show will be greatly rewarded. Lost is at the top of its game as one of the most exciting and intelligent shows on the box.

As we prepare to enter Lost's penultimate season, I present you with a brief cheat sheet to brush up on television's most perplexed castaways.

[insert flashback whoosh sound here]

Jack (rescued)
Everyone's favourite doc with daddy issues escaped the island and declared that the other escapees mustn't tell anyone about what happened there in order to protect the other survivors. Since rescue, Jack has been visited by Jeremy Bentham (the man in the coffin) who told him some terrible things had happened on the island since he left. Jack became racked with guilt over abandoning the other survivors, including Claire, who he learned is his half-sister.

Claire (unknown)
Since being all blowed up in an explosion while the survivors battled the freighter folk, Claire's been acting incredibly strange. Her current pasttime seems to be hanging out in that creepy moving shack with her and Jack's dead father, Christian Shepherd.

Kate (rescued)
Upon rescue, Kate went to court for her crimes and was given 10 years probation on the condition she remain in California. Kate and Jack were briefly engaged. Claire's child, Aaron, is living with Kate. Presumably without contributing any rent, the slacker. Kate is living under the pretence that Aaron is her child.

Sawyer (on the island)
Sawyer sacrificed his own rescue so that the other survivors could escape. Before doing so, he whispered something in Kate's ear. He probably asked her to feed his fish.

Juliet (on the island)
Juliet was last seen drinking rum with Sawyer on the beach. Yo, ho, ho, etc.

Daniel (missing)
Eccentric physicist Daniel was last seen ferrying people to the freighter off the island. He has developed a bond with Desmond, who is his "constant", something too complicated to do anything but link to here. Brush up on that, as time travel is set to be a major part of the fifth season.

Miles (on the island)
Ghost-whisperer Miles remains stranded by choice, opting not to ride with Daniel to the freighter. Bit weird.

Charlotte (on the island)
The mysterious Charlotte also opts to stay on the island. Although it transpires she's been there before...

Hurley (rescued)
Hurley's curse hasn't escaped him since being rescued. After seeing visions of the deceased Charlie and Mr Eko off the island, he is readmitted to the same mental institution he was in before the plane crash. He has also been visited by Jeremy Bentham. Oh, and those numbers still haunt him.

Michael (dead)
By delaying the detonation of a large amount of explosives aboard the freighter, Michael sacrificed himself in order to give the survivors the time they needed to escape. Christian Shepherd appeared to Michael moments before he died.

Jin (presumed dead)
Jin's fate is uncertain, but he was seemingly caught in the inevitable explosion of the freighter.

Sun (rescued)
Sun escaped the island but, hopeful that Jin survived, she makes a pact with big baddie Charles Widmore to help him find the island.

Ben (magically appeared off the island after turning a giant, frozen wheel)
Upon instruction from Jacob (overseer of the island), beady-eyed Other Ben assisted Locke to "move the island". To where (or when) remains a mystery. In doing so, he was teleported to the Sahara desert 10 months into the future. After the death of his own daughter at the hands of Widmore's men on island, he swears to kill Widmore's daughter in order to settle the score.

Sayid (rescued)
After escaping, Sayid married his beloved Nadia who was later murdered. Ben finds Sayid and tells him the culprit was one of Widmore's men, leading Sayid to become a mercenary for Ben.

Desmond (rescued)
Desmond's rescue remains unknown to the rest of the world (unlike the highly-publicised rescue of the Oceanic 6). He was swiftly reunited with his beloved Penny... Widmore's daughter.

Locke (dead?)
We recently learnt Locke has been watched from birth by ageless Other Richard Alpert. On the island, he made contact with Jacob, who told Locke to move the island. After the island moves, Locke will become leader of the Others. On the mainland in the future, Ben visits Jack, who tells him that in order to save the stranded survivors, everyone who left the island must return, including the deceased Jeremy Bentham, who, it turns out, is John Locke.

Ooooooo...

Anyway, Lost. Brilliant. Watch it.

Desperate Housewives: Season 5 (2008-2009)

Minor spoilers for Desperate Housewives: Season 5 ("The Best Thing That Ever Could Have Happened")

Hi. My name's Matt. I'm a 23-year-old heterosexual male and I'm a fan of Desperate Housewives. There. I said it. Wanna fight about it?

I always get some strange reactions when I make the above statement (least of all because I'm threatening people with violence), but you know what? Anyone who judges Desperate Housewives based on its apparent reputation for being a light, fluffy show for women – a kind of primetime Bold and the Beautiful – is dead wrong.

Desperate Housewives might be slick, sexy and comical, but that's all subterfuge, for its overarching stories are dark mysteries with some truly disturbing twists in their unravelling. The subject matter allows the show's trademark black humour to flourish – at times, Desperate Housewives is outright hysterical. Unlike other dramatic serials, Desperate Housewives more or less wraps up every story arc by the end of each season, meaning that each mystery can be plotted out and resolved in a satisfying manner. Most importantly, though, it's smart, addictive television.

The final scenes of Desperate Housewives' fourth season saw the show take an unprecedented five-year leap forward in time that's seen the fifth season re-ignite the spark of the show's first and third years (it seems Desperate Housewives is at its best during the odd-numbered seasons). This year's mystery began with the arrival of Neal McDonough's sinister Dave Williams, husband to man-eater Edie Britt. The psychotic Williams, brilliantly played by McDonough, is secretly plotting revenge against one of Wisteria Lane's residents for reasons unknown. It's a compelling story on par with the mystery of Mary Alice's death and the tale of Orson Hodge's sick past.

"The Best Thing That Ever Could Have Happened", the series' milestone 100th episode, was broadcast this week. Opting to give this year's mystery a back seat, creator Marc Cherry served up a self-contained story based around guest star Beau Bridges' Eli Scruggs, a handyman with a heart of gold. Scruggs dies before the opening credits roll (there is much death within Desperate Housewives), prompting the main characters to reminisce about how he had impacted their lives.

What followed was a series of moving flashbacks that essentially re-engineered key moments in the characters' lives to show the involvement of the generous handyman. It was a neat trick that, like the sudden inclusion of Lost's maligned background castaways Nikki and Paulo, was pulled off effectively, even allowing us to revisit some familiar faces from the show's past.

It was a surprisingly moving episode that may have been light on the comedy, but it proved that for all the dark satire of suburban life, Desperate Housewives' characters are real people with real emotions. Serialised drama episodes are frequently overlooked at TV awards ceremonies, but I'd be very surprised if this standalone tale is doesn't receive a nod at Emmy time.