I suspect that most film lovers admire you at your best, but even the most dedicated fan might wonder what impels you to appear as a) Zeus in the 2 Titan movies, b) a guy who likes killing people in 2 Taken films, not to mention Unknown, and c) the voice of Aslan in the Narnia films. Is it a question of money, of profile, of boredom? Isn't there some work needs doing in the garden? I'm sure the kids would like to see more of you.

I'll come back to some of the more disappointing aspects of your career, and start with the high points. These would include Schindler's List, Rob Roy, Michael Collins and Kinsey. Notice what they have in common? That's right, real life characters, slightly larger than life, and needing a big man in every sense of the word to play them. You were lined up to be Lincoln in Spielberg's movie as well, but as time passed, you became too old, and now it's going to be Daniel Day Lewis. So we know you're a talented actor, capable of impressive performances that dominate the screen, but that's a very small percentage of films out of a total that's approaching 100. And the most recent of those, Kinsey, was made in 2004.

Weigh them against the debit scale; the ones I've already mentioned, plus the dreadful Star Wars accident, Chloe (which no one saw), The A Team (an offence against cinema), not to mention earlier catastrophes like High Spirits and A Prayer For The Dying. I can see that there are films where you might have hoped for something better. Maybe you felt that Kingdom Of Heaven was an interesting film, except that it wasn't; perhaps you had high hopes of After.Life, but it died a death. I don't think the Batman films count as anything very serious.

So there you are, all craggy and tormented. It's obvious that comedy is not your forte, as you so admirably demonstrated in Life's Too Short with Ricky Gervais. Instead you seem to have reinvented yourself as an action hero, most recently fighting off wolves in The Grey. Fair enough. If you can get paid for being Mr Macho at your age, no one would argue with your right to take the work, but there is - as always - a quality control issue. Those big sad eyes of yours, in a face that expresses resignation and grief as strongly as anger and dynamism, are worthy of better things than slaughtering assorted Europeans simply because they happen to be in the same room as you and your weapon.Or wolves, come to that.

You are capable of greatness, but too often, you settle for triviality. The loss is ours as much as yours, and I feel sad to see an old lion tethered and tamed by mice.

Here are a few things that I have enjoyed recently.

The idea of Mickey Rourke playing Gareth Thomas in a movie. Gareth Thomas is a Welsh rugby player . He played for Wales over 100 times, switched to rugby league and came out as gay. He's in his mid 30s. He looks nothing like Mickey Rourke.
Mick is nearly 60, with a face that looks as though it has been run over by several buses. He is American, has never played rugby and looks nothing like Thomas. Unless this is a major wind up, this has to be the silliest film idea of the century.

A man who no one has ever heard of has been nominated for Best Actor at this year's Oscar ceremony. He's called Demian Bichir, and he is the star of a film called A Better Life. He's nearly 50, has appeared in dozens of films you've never heard of (though he played Castro in Soderbergh's Che), and he'll be up against the likes of Gary Oldman and George Clooney. He won't win, but it's great that he's nominated.

I'm equally thrilled about the likelihood/possibility of The Artist running off with a lot of top awards. Like The King's Speech last year, it was my favourite film at Toronto, and I knew that it would be popular, just not this popular. How wonderful it would be for a black and white silent film to wn Best Film.

I'd also love Christopher Plummer to win an Oscar for Beginners.

Whatever people may say, the film business is no worse than it was 10, 20, 30, 500 years ago. Nostalgia sucks. Sure there were classic movies then, and there's a lot of terrible films about these days. But take any year, go back in time, and see how much dross there was on offer in 1939, 1954 or 1972, for example. We just get the best of the past, and anyway it's too soon to know if a new film is a classic.

And we have two huge advantages over the past. One is the availability of films from all over the world, which is a modern phenomenon. The other is the availability of films, period. Pretty much anything ever released can be bought, rented, or watched in one way way or another, with a good quality picture and sound reproduction. Plus no one smokes in cinemas any more.

Be grateful, and enjoy what's out there.

trailer

6/10

The title of this film, which is adapted from Jo Nesbo's novel, is an intentional pun. The hero is a man whose profession is to head hunt for big companies. But for reasons that he can't quite understand, his literal head is being hunted by an implacable enemy.

Jo Nesbo is an author whose novels claim to follow in the footsteps of the Stieg Larsson trilogy, though the main point of similarity is that they are both Swedish thriller writers. Larsson's novels have a more explicitly political purpose, whereas Nesbo simply writes thrillers which are set in Sweden.

Roger Brown (such is the improbably English name of our Swedish hero) is successful insofar as he has a beautiful wife, and a job at which he is very successful. However, in his heart of hearts, he feels a failure. His wife is taller than him, and - to his mind - out of his league. Therefore it's only a matter of time before she leaves him. To help keep her, he steals paintings and sells them, then buys her expensive stuff. But he's still in debt. In fact, all she wants is a child. What is needed here is some couples therapy. What we get is an action movie with twists. People get killed, crosses get doubled, and Roger is on the run, with the police and the bad guy both after him.

This is all told and filmed in an exciting and enjoyable way, but it's hard to escape the feeling that it is all a lot of fuss about nothing. Roger is a nice enough guy, but a bit of a dweeb, though in the course of the manhunt, he learns to be much more resourceful than he could have imagined. Hiding inside the contents of an outside loo isn't something they teach you in management school. So, although you may go along to this hoping for another dose of the thrills you get from Lisabeth and Blomquist, or even from The Killing, you would be better off keeping your expectations low. There is nothing here to surprise or illuminate you, no subtext about fascism, corporate greed or misogyny. I'm sure there will be a US remake of the film in due course, starring someone like Jake Gyllenhaal (though, on second thoughts, maybe he's too tall), and that won't be anything special either. But taken on its own terms, this is a perfectly decent twisty thriller.

trailer

trailer

trailer

His latest masterpiece is about a man (Murphy, no less) who pushes the boundaries of moral ethics on a business deal with a guru. As a result he finds that he is rationed to no more than a thousand words, after which he will become eternally silent. Yup, that's right, it's a variation on Liar, Liar, Yes Man and other films with a simple (and impossible) premise. You know, and I know, that this will be a truly awful film, a) because of the trailer and b) because every Eddie Murphy film for the last 25 years has been dreadful. Lots of people will go and see it, but hopefully not you. I will summon up the courage to go and see it, so that I can reassure you that it is as bad as I know it is.

trailer

I would, therefore, advise you to steer well away from this particular iceberg, because James Cameron doesn't need any more money, and although Rupert Murdoch (owner of 20th Century Fox) does, I don't want to give either of them any of my dosh. Having said which, I wouldn't be altogether surprised if this topped the charts when it is finally rereleased. You have been warned.

trailer