This time, she targets onscreen mothers who are in reality only a few years older than the actors playing their sons.  The classic example is Alexander; Angelina Jolie, playing the mother, is just one year older than Colin Farrell, her ’son’, but others include The Graduate (OK, not his mother exactly) and North by Northwest (strangely overlooked in the article).

However, sadly Hadley sticks a pin in her argument when she cites Back to the Future (Lea Thompson/Michael J Fox) and Forrest Gump (Sally Field/Tom Hanks); two terrible examples.  In both films, the actresses are required to play younger women for a period, during which time their sons (if they have any) are played by children.

It has apparently not occurred to Hadley that if the film covers an extended period of time (say, 30+ years) you’ll need an actress who can convincingly play young as well as old.  Since it’s much easier to age an actor using makeup than it is to reverse the effect, a younger actress was always going to be the way to go.  

With her argument deflating like a faulty lifejacket, Hadley starts thrashing around in a sea of tired ideas, eventually returning to the familar love-interest angle: “Isn’t it a bit creepy how some actors date much younger women?  Jack Nicholson and Woody Allen, I’m looking at you.”  Apparently Jack Nicholson’s average age gap with his onscreen lovers is 16.7 years – although given that he is pushing 72, this is not so vast in percentage terms (like a 36 year old guy dating 28 year old girl).

The problem with this argument is that last year a number of films started to turn the tide, from blockbusters like Mamma Mia! (starring a 59-year-old Meryl Streep and her three younger lovers – Colin Firth is 11 years her junior) to heavyweight fare like The Reader, dealing with a relationship across a 15 year age gap, where Kate Winslet is the elder party.

Sadly, instead of hailing these brave, yet sensible, casting choices, Hadley ignores them in favour of slating films from previous decades.  She’s the master when it comes to fashion journalism, but I think her film-related commentary desperately needs a makeover.  Ba-boom tish!

Prior to this film, Bruce Willis was known primarily for his role in Moonlighting, which cast him as a loudmouthed detective (no change there then).  He was, in fact, shooting Moonlighting during the day, and Die Hard at night – tough work, but Die Hard alone was worth a then-astronomical $5million paycheck.

Although it’s probably overstating the case to say that Bruce Willis redefined the flawed, yet seemingly indestructible hero, Die Hard’s central formula of a maverick single-handedly saving the day in an enclosed space had a huge influence on the action cinema of the Nineties.  Die Hard on a boat, anyone?  On a plane?  In an ice rink?

I haven’t seen it for a while, so I’m interested to see how the effects hold up; I’m assuming that they will look awesome in HD, particularly as in 1988 CGI was not as pervasive as it is now.  Those explosions were made by blowing stuff up, not clicking a mouse, and are all the better for it.  As the NYPD detective John McClane, Willis is all too human - a cynical, subborn hero - and the film’s excitement comes from his indefatigable attempts to overcome overwhelming odds.  This is a guy who sweats, curses and bleeds as much as the next man, and we root for his survival all the more because of it.

No discussion of Die Hard would be complete without a mention for the film’s counterweight; a fantastic performance from Alan Rickman as the villainous Hans Gruber.  In terms of scenery-chewing, the man has few equals, and every British actor who subsequently found him (or her)self called to Hollywood to add a bit of bite to the bad guy owes him a huge debt.

As always, we are getting things started at 6pm.  Haagen Dasz is provided, and if you would like to come, just let me know!

The heroes of my next pick know the pain.  Superbad follows Seth and Evan, American kids with the same hang-ups as teenage boys the world over.  The film follows their attempts to impress the girls by procuring alcohol for a party, and the ensuing chaos involving fake ID, deranged policemen and, um, menstrual blood. Now, at this point you may be thinking that the film sounds like some horrendous sub-Porky’s mess, but you’d be wrong.  The film has a surprisingly good heart, and perhaps the key lies with the writers, Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg.

These guys started writing the film when they were 13, and somehow the authenticity of its origins shows through; to some extent in the plot, which is adolescent wish-fulfilment (in common with plenty of Hollywood’s output), but mainly in the interaction between the two central characters.  I should state at this point that the language is obscene – and frequently wickedly funny.  It takes real effort to cram so much swearing into such a short timeframe, although at only 1.6 FPM it is an improvement on Layer Cake.

Despite the language, it is a warm movie, dealing with the fear and excitement of growing up, and the resulting change in their relationships.  Equal parts gross-out comedy and coming-of-age drama, it even manages to meditate honestly on the value of platonic friendship.  If you you concentrate on the way these kids behave, rather than the way they talk, you’ll leave the film with real affection for them.

We’re getting things started at 6pm on Tuesday 18th November; if you want to come, just let me know.

When the film was released in 2004, rumours were circulating that Pierce Brosnan was not going to be hired to play Bond for a fifth time; pushing 50, and never one to obsess over his physique, Brosnan was in danger of heading into late-Roger-Moore territory.  That led to the inevitable speculation over who would be next in the chair, with Clive Owen, Hugh Jackman and even Ewan McGregor among the bookie’s favourites. My money was on Clive Owen until I watched Daniel Craig in this.

It’s not like the similarities between the characters are immediately obvious.  Whereas the Bond films are eponymous, Craig’s character in Layer Cake is never referred to by name.  He plays a smart and resourceful criminal, but he’s no tough guy, spending most of the film trying desperately to stay one step ahead of the many different factions (big-time mobsters, low-life thugs and even Serbian war criminals) who are out to get him.

The longer you spend with him, however, the more you realise that he is one cool customer.  Hounded at every turn by people with more brawn but less brain, Craig’s character frequently finds himself having to talk his way out of life-or-death situations.  Phoned at home by a Serbian assassin, his quick-thinking invitation to breakfast sets up one of the best lines in the film.

Directed by Matthew Vaughan, Layer Cake is a stylish, pacy film with plenty of twists and some gruesome scenes (although most of the violence occurs off-screen).  However, the language has to be heard to be believed; the word ‘fuck’, for example, apparently occurs 201 times in the film’s 105 minutes: 1.91 FPM.

Despite that (and to be honest, after about 10 minutes you should be sufficiently immersed in the film that the language is part of the ambience; after all, these are not nice people) Layer Cake is cool, classy entertainment.  We’re getting things started at 6pm on Tuesday 28th October; if you want to come, just let me know.