'The Impossible' dir. Juan Antonio Bayona

Not for those of a squeamish or sensitive disposition, The Impossible spends most of its running time alternating between brutal depictions of emergency medicine and heart wrenching family splits or reunions.

Based on the true story of a Spanish family in the aftermath of the 2004 Asian Tsunami, this film, set in Thailand, instead depicts a British family suffering the same fate and it is unsparing in its take on the damage of a colossal natural disaster.

Naomi Watts plays the Mother, Maria, who finds herself split from the rest of her family with the exception of her eldest son, Lucas. After the Tsunami hits, she is badly injured. The film then largely follows her quest for medical assistance in the chaotic days following the wave.

Meanwhile, Ewan McGregor's Henry (the father) managed to keep hold of the two younger boys and get them to safety. He spends his time thereafter looking for a place to give them shelter. Once this is achieved, he sets off in search of his missing wife and eldest son.

Lucas (played with panache by Tom Holland) is a boy filled with decent intentions. Once his mother is taken to hospital, he attempts to reunite as many families as he is capable of when the overstretched hospital staff do not have time to do so. It is the first of many attempts by the film to establish a sentimental subtext.

In the background to all this is a strange, European dominated take on the Tsunami. Whilst many of the people who assist the family are of Thai origin, what becomes of the local victims of the disaster is somewhat skated over. I can therefore understand why some other reviews have pointed out that this may be evidence of a slight Colonial bias.

However, even though it is told from the perspective of a Westerner, the film persistently covers the point that the family recognise the advantages they have and how they were briefly stripped from them by a freak event. It did not seem overly patronising to those who lived with the aftermath.

The Impossible's greatest weakness is that it makes too much of its moments of hope as tone of the film veers towards saccharine sweetness, not that it is not a moving and interesting tale but it weighs in too heavily with the emotional hits for comfort.

Nonetheless, the action scenes are well balanced and the acting is for the most part impressive and despite some fairly redundant arty moments, Bayona largely does the script justice.

A non-fiction tale that is well told but that has been given too much of a Hollywood veneer to be as watchable as it might have been.

'Zoolander' dir. Ben Stiller

The fashionistas are out in full cry for this film, which takes a sideswipe at their world. Ben Stiller eagerly pokes fun at the industry, with his usual crew of Owen Wilson, Christine Taylor and Will Ferrell in tow.

Mawkish, self-obsessed male model Derek Zoolander (Stiller) is a man on a mission, not that he realises it yet. He is too busy perfecting his latest 'look'. The premise of the slightly redundant plot is that male models, who are easily manipulated and in peak physical condition, make ideal political assassins.

A particularly ruthless designer known as Jacobim Mugatu (Ferrell) aims to use Zoolander to assassinate the Malaysian Prime Minister, who has recently made some new laws which have upset the profit margins of Mugatu's company.

Whilst it seems that Stiller is taking a stab at a political point, namely the immorality of sweatshop labour for high fashion, most of the film is a ludicrous, slightly camp comedy about the odd, odd world of Derek Zoolander. His rivalry with Hansel (Owen Wilson) takes centre stage in a face off between characters who do not seem to share a single brain cell between them.

This rivalry leads them to a 'walk-off' in which the models pose with the intention of getting David Bowie to decide in their favour. This is the first of many cameos which become increasingly nonsensical as the scenes rattle along, a habit which Ben Stiller has never really grown out of. It becomes increasingly jarring in the latter stages when it seems some of the plot holes are covered by a game of 'who's this?'

Nevertheless, Christine Taylor offers welcome relief from some of the high jinks with a turn as journalist Matilda Jeffries but she seems a bit underused and her story comes to a particularly predictable end.

There is a lot of fun in this one and it is an easy watch. It set the mould for Dodgeball and many other Stiller comedies. Yet, despite its initial derision for physical beauty at the expense of character, it ultimately celebrates the world of Derek Zoolander in all its pretentious glory.

Despite a slightly tepid ending, Zoolander offers a solid evening of entertainment with a few belly laughs along the way.

'Round Ireland with a Fridge' by Tony Hawks

Why take a fridge hitch-hiking around Ireland?

Well, Tony Hawks' approach is best summed up by the question why not? Although, it may be fair to spectulate that a £100 drunken bet with a friend may also have played a small part in his motivations.

The account of his journey in 1997 is populated by a cast of Irish eccentrics who seem to have walked off the set of Father Ted and into non-fiction. Indeed, he introduces us to the hierarchy of the many, many Irish pubs he visits including, but not limited to the 'lead drunk'.

As often as not in this book, Tony Hawks himself seems to be making a bid for that title. Indeed, the story is for the most part a collection of barely remembered evenings from a bloke carrying a fridge.

Hawks takes occasional brief but interesting diversions into whether the fridge itself has gained a personality as the result of its travels. Indeed, he christens it 'Saoirse' - the Irish Gaelic word for 'freedom' - somewhat appropriate given that the fridge gives Hawks a certain freedom through the popularity it lends him.

This is helped to a large extent by the helpfulness of the Irish media, who track every step of his journey, doubtless making it easier on a hitch-hiker standing at the side of the road with only a fridge for company.

Throughout this long, seemingly pointless quest, Hawks never loses his easy affability or sense of joy, despite standing in rainstorms which would test the hardiest souls.

His journey, as he admits, taught him very little and he concedes that it did not achieve anything.

Nor did it have to. The story instead serves as a reminder of the importance of pointless endeavours and the never-ending supply of indulgence for such journeys on both sides of the Irish Sea.

'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' dir. Peter Jackson

Ok, so here were my concerns before seeing the first part of this new trilogy:-

1. The Hobbit is not a very long book - only just over 250 pages so how was Peter Jackson going to spread that story across three separate films?

2. Nor is it a sprawling epic in the manner of Lord of The Rings. It is much more of a straighforward narrative of Bilbo Baggins and his adventures.

3. Would any of the content of the book (including vast quantities of drinking, eating and getting lost in the woods) really translate to a Jacksonian three hour epic? Let alone three of them.

Having seen An Unexpected Journey, I am not convinced that any of those issues are resolved.

The film is nonetheless a fun romp through Middle Earth which includes almost the entire British acting profession in its cast. The first among equals is Ian McKellen, who makes a welcome return as Gandalf and, as always, the scenes in which he shouts spells at nasty creatures are particular high points.

Martin Freeman is unsurprisingly excellent as Bilbo, channeling all his knowledge of Tim Canterbury, Arthur Dent and John Watson to the part of the supposed everyman. His homely, awkward manner at the start is soon replaced by an inner toughness that even he was not aware of until the Dwarves dragged him away from The Shire.

Ken Stott, Richard Armitage and James Nesbitt are among the dwarves who ham it up to eleven. Their shared quest is to retrieve their lost kingdom from the dragon Smaug. The fact that Smaug barely even appears in the film is indicative of how much they have stretched the story of the book - perhaps the CGI budget was looking a bit thin.

Appearances from Ian Holm (as the elder Bilbo, narrating), Elijah Wood (the evergreen Frodo), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Christopher Lee (Saruman), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) and Andy Serkis (Gollum) all feel a little shoehorned in. Much of one of the more interesting scenes in Rivendell is a discussion between Elrond, Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman about 'dark portents' and 'the presence of a new evil'. Wonder what that could refer to?

Nevertheless, the atmosphere of the vast majority of the film is entirely different from Lord of The Rings. It is a lighter, more comic tone, in keeping with the book in that respect. The scale feels that much smaller and the characters that much less concerned with the outcome of their quest. Much time is spent drinking, smoking or feasting.

For this reason, some of the scenes seem a little dragged out. Especially one shared by Bilbo and Gollum that seems a bit early in the trilogy for its purpose. Serkis nonetheless manages to convey the usual sense of unease and threat in his performance.

There are some very enthralling and fun sequences in the film but I left the cinema no more convinced that the book has sufficient material to be stretched over three films. It felt altogether looser than Lord of The Rings and whilst this was entertaining at times, it lacked the same intensity.

Worth a look but too spun out for my liking.