We're about halfway through season two now, and this excellent television series is starting to heat up again with numerous references to Don Draper's secret life and how it has made him become one of the best advertising executives in New York, but also one of the most deeply disturbed.

If you haven't caught madmen yet, don't even start now. Go rent the DVD for season one madmen and record anything that comes on now on the AMC network. The reason I recommend this is because, not unlike the Sopranos, every episode is full of layer upon layer of character building, relationship complexity, and intriguing dialogue and settings.

Matthew Weiner, who wrote for the Sopranos and is now the lead writer for madmen, brings his creative intertwining style to this series, making it one of the most intriguing television productions of the last decade. The series focuses on Don Draper who is an account executive with the Sterling Cooper Advertising Agency of New York City in the early 1960s. Not only do you get deep and fascinating characters in this series, but it is delivered in an era of political upheaval, racial tension, chauvinistic attitudes, retro fashion and clothes, and the very demanding world of New York advertising.

Don Draper's character, although fully capable, and at times, masterfully ingenious at his job, is haunted by his own personality, derived from his disturbing childhood and wartime deceit. His obvious intelligence leaves the viewer wondering how he could be so misguided, and at the same time, attracts sympathy as a result of his situation.

Even though Don Draper - played by Jon Hamm - is the main character of Mad Men, it by no means is a narrow dialogue. Think back to the Sopranos, and how diverse that series became even though most people watched it because of Tony, there was quality in every scene. Mad Men TV show is every bit as diverse, disturbing, and intriguing.

A fire extinguisher: for most of us, nothing but a standard piece of safety equipment, tied to the wall with extinguisher brackets and sealed in an extinguisher box. But for the early filmmakers of a largely pre-narrative Hollywood, a fire extinguisher of the classic pre-pressurized type was just another means of struggling to develop a common language of film.

It's hard to believe that what we think of as the contemporary Hollywood blockbuster evolved from work like "Magic Extinguisher", a 1901 film from the Williamson production company. Current movies are known above all for their fantastic special effects, their schmaltz-laden narratives, and their pantheon of stars designed to draw people in to even the weakest of productions. It's tempting to assume from the way Hollywood films actually evolved that this is the only way in which film as a medium could have evolved, the only possible way to make art from the simple process of recording moving images.

But at the roots of film, all we had was that process. There are plenty of stories about early film showing venues being packed with crowds willing to see nothing beyond a few seconds of footage in which a man shaved and got ready for work, or in which birds and animals moved across a lush yard. At one point, the simple novelty of motion was enough to captivate. Hints of the fascination of early film can still be seen when looking at the popularity of formats like IMAX, which began with dull footage of mountains filmed in such a way as to make their height seem terrifying and impressive: uninteresting content, novel and fascinating presentation.

The problem with the fascination of new technology, however, is that new technology never remains new for long. Eventually, the content needs to arrive on its own terms as well, filling out and justifying the form in order to allow the medium to take its place in the ranks of art.

With movies, "The Great Train Robbery" is the approach that caught on: using film to tell a story with characters and a plot. But there were other experiments, experiments doomed to perish like the three-eyed soft-shelled beasts of the Precambrian Explosion. One of these experiments was "Magic Extinguisher."

Viewed as a period piece, the film isn't awful. It attempted to recapture some of the already-passing magic of new technology in the same way as singers of the 1920s would attempt to seem modern by singing through megaphones: the film included the early "fire extinguisher", a large metal cone which could be placed over burning objects to cut off their oxygen supply and snuff the flames. Other than that burst of modernity, the film is nothing but trick photography. A magician places the extinguisher cone over small objects; a jump cut is performed; the magician removes the extinguisher cone and the objects have become something else entirely. After turning animals into other animals for a while, the magician places the extinguisher cone over his own head and removes it: suddenly, he's become a young boy.

And it's a skill that would be nice to have, honestly. With early film, it's possible to place the extinguisher cone of forgetfulness of our own heads and remove it to see the possibilities of one hundred years ago, at the dawn of a medium: a time when access to the silver screen was guaranteed for nothing more than a single magician and his extinguisher box of tricks.

The movie industry is a fickle business and scripts are often touted around a number of people before a director and cast attach themselves. Over the years a number of classic and beloved movies have been made by second or even third choice directors and actors. We can only wonder how these films would have turned out had they been made by the studio's first choice.

Dustin Hoffman was the first choice to play Deckard in Bladerunner and apparently a host of other actors were considered before Harrison Ford got the part. According to writer Philip K. Dick Martin Scorcese was interested in directing but never optioned the novel.

Kubrick considered both Robert De Niro and Robin Williams to play the part of Jack in The Shining before settling on Jack Nicholson. Stephen King, author of the book on which the film is based, wanted Michael Moriarty or Jon Voight for the role.

Alien was going to be directed by Walter Hill but after helping re-write the script the production was delayed and he pulled out to make way for Ridley Scott.

The central role of Andy in the hugely popular film The Shawshank Redemption was turned down by Tom Hanks and Kevin Costner before it was offered to Tim Robbins. Rob Reiner also tried to buy the rights from Frank Darabont intending to direct it himself and he planned to cast Tom Cruise in the lead role.

The Godfather was offered to Italian director Sergio Leone who turned it down and Coppola was reportedly close to being replaced a number of times as his relationship with Paramount turned sour. The studio also wanted someone other than Brando for the role of Vito Corleone and apparently Ernest Borgnine and Orson Welles were considered but Coppola insisted on Brando. Warren Beatty, Jack Nicholson and Dustin Hoffman all turned down the role of Michael Corleone and Martin Sheen also auditioned for the part before Coppola settled on the then relatively unknown Al Pacino.

Al Pacino has turned down a number of fantastic parts in his career including the role of Jimmy Conway in Goodfellas which went to Robert De Niro, he also turned down the part of Han Solo in Star Wars and Captain Willard in Apocalypse Now. The part of Willard was first turned down by Steve McQueen and shooting started with Harvey Keitel in the role before Coppola replaced him two weeks into production with Martin Sheen.

When making Pulp Fiction Tarantino wanted Michael Madsen to play the role of Vincent Vega but he turned it down to do the Kevin Costner film Wyatt Earp. Daniel Day-Lewis also reportedly wanted the part but Tarantino rejected him in favour of John Travolta.

Tom Selleck was actually cast in the role of Indiana Jones for Raiders of the Lost Ark but pulled out to continue making Magnum P.I. Apparently George Lucas resisted casting Harrison Ford in the part keen to avoid him becoming "that guy I put in all my movies", luckily Spielberg eventually persuaded him Ford was perfect for the role.

Will Smith and Nicolas Cage both turned down the part of Neo in The Matrix and it eventually went to Keanu Reeves. Sean Connery turned down the part of Morpheus which eventually went to Laurence Fishburne. Connery also turned down the role of Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and he only got the part of James Bond in Dr. No after Cary Grant decided he was too old for the part and refused it.

Terry Gilliam turned down the chance to direct American Beauty and unbelievably Chevy Chase turned down the role that won Kevin Spacey an Oscar.

Mel Gibson turned down the role of Maximus in Gladiator, the part which won Russell Crowe an Oscar. Gibson also declined Costner's part in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves and he only ended up directing Braveheart after Terry Gilliam turned it down. Gilliam also rejected the chance to direct Forrest Gump and Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

Jack Lemmon turned down the role of Butch in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Newman switched roles from Sundance to Butch when Steve McQueen was cast as Sundance. The part eventually went to Robert Redford.

Sidney Lumet was going to direct Scarface but backed out and Brian De Palma quit directing Flashdance so that he could take over.

When James Cameron was casting for The Terminator he considered O.J. Simpson and then Lance Henriksen for the role of the robotic killer and Schwarzenegger was originally offered the role of Kyle Reese, thankfully he eventually came to his senses and cast Schwarzenegger as the Terminator and Michael Biehn as Reese.

It is fun to consider how different many of your favourite films might have been with different actors or directors and it is interesting to note that for most if not all of the examples given above things probably worked out for the best.

There are no shortage of contenders for the title of greatest film of all time and many film theorists would say that a decision such as this should not be left to the public, however it has been and the public has spoken and this article offers an expert review of the IMDB top film of all time, the Shawshank Redemption.

The Shawshank Redemption is generally a film that ranks up on most top ten lists and I find myself questioning why. Could it be the slow baritone pace of the narration, or the feel good finale where the system gets beaten? The truth is the film is grotesquely historically inaccurate and unbelievable, however soothing and entertaining in places.

The brutality of the prison is superficial and the crude representation of institutionalisation throughout is garish. Freeman gives his stock performance whether he is playing the president, god or a criminal, he seems to be the acting equivalent of a Volvo, nothing special but you know what you are getting.

The film seems to have slipped through a gap somewhere delivering a desensitised portrayal of a 1930s prison in a southern US state where people of the same colour can not attend the same school and are still hung in public, however in Shawshank everyone seems to be one big happy family. Artistic license has been stretched and broken in this film, at points it feels like a prison adaptation of Its A Wonderful Life.

The director Frank Darabont is no stranger to idealised prison stories as he also directed the Green Mile and has a project in pre-production called Law Abiding Citizen which is about a criminal mastermind operating from his prison cell. The popularity of his films must be something to do with the gritty nature of the prison setting combined with the somewhat fairytale narrative techniques which creates a comfortable distance from the harsh realities.

It does deserve some credit as it is a relatively entertaining film albeit extremely sentimental. The major fault with the film is the lack of a journey that lead characters go on. Tim Robbins enters prison with a reserved confidence knowing his destiny and achieves it with relatively little difficulty and Morgan Freeman exists purely to provide a metronome commentary on Robbins. The staunch thematic pillars of the film are all too prevalent and the message that Robbins carries, that you cannot imprison a mans spirit saturates the narrative.

All this is wrapped up nicely by a truly Hollywood mainstream ending where the good guys prevail, although the character Freeman plays is a convicted murderer. There are some nice moments and this review might seem scathing to many however it is based on the notion that The Shawshank Redemption is one of the best films ever made.

BOTTON LINE: This film is a solid, character-driven film with an intricate story concerning a police chief father and his two sons, one a policeman, the other a nightclub owner associating with the criminal underworld. There's a lot going on and it's well acted, but the tone of the film is very depressing which detracts from the enjoyment of watching the great complicated story unfold.

THE GOOD: "We Own The Night" has a very rich, dramatic texture to its story-telling. It's the type of film that will pull you in with the intricate details of its story, and with characters that undergo major shifts in their life journeys. The primary case in point is Joaquin Phoenix's character Bobby who initially shuns his father's (Robert Duvall) calls for help in nailing the Russian mafia who frequent his night club. This brings him in to conflict with his brother Joseph (Mark Wahlberg) when he leads a raid on Bobby's night club. After the three men come to blows, Bobby comes to see the light when Joseph is shot by the Russian mafia but manages to survive. Bobby decides to help his father catch the bad guys, but the costs are high and the three men find they are involved in something they may not come out of alive. The cast is excellent, with Joaquin Phoenix providing a well rounded, three dimensional portrayal of his character Bobby who has a big journey in this film, going from naughty playboy to responsible citizen. Robert Duvall is excellent, as is Mark Wahlberg who is perhaps more understated here than in his other films. Eva Mendes also does a great job as Bobby's girlfriend Amada, providing a level of depth and quality in her performance that elevates her character beyond a simple love interest. "We Own The Night" is a dramatically rich, unwinding tale of a film that will keep your attention right until the very end.

THE BAD: The execution, both visually and dramatically, is quite dark and depressing, and not in a good way. This film unravels as a downer from start to finish, and given its slower pacing and yellowish visual hues, the experience of watching the film is not as satisfying as what it could have been given the strength of its story and characters. This might have been an attempt to make the film "realistic" but it doesn't work in the film's favour; you only have to look at films like "The Departed", "Goodfellas" or even "Scarface" to understand how you can make a dark story filled with nefarious characters entertaining.

BOTTOM LINE: This is cinematic perfection; strong themes, exciting characters, witty dialogue and some spectacular visuals combine to give a unique, rich experience which explores the male psyche and its role within society.

THE GOOD: 'Fight Club' without a doubt has to be one of the best films ever made. What's so surprising about what you will see is that you won't see it all in one sitting. There are so many layers at work that you'll need to see it a few times before you can truly appreciate everything you have watched. On a superficial level, this film is about two guys who start an underground "fight club" where everyday Joe's can beat the crap out of each other in order to feel alive. That might sound brutal and abhorrent, but this film has so much to say, particularly about the male psyche and the way it has to deal with the modern 'PC' world it finds itself in. Brad Pitt as Tyler and Edward Norton as the unnamed Narrator are absolutely brilliant in their roles as the two men who start the club, and they have some very witty, biting and topical dialogue (take Pitt's explanation of how to make all kind of explosives using simple household items if one were so inclined!). On top of the cracking script and great performances, director David Fincher also unleashes a flurry of amazing images. The colours are dark and more on the cool side, but the shots are absolutely amazing, starting with the opening CG title sequence which begin on an extreme close-up of Norton's brain cells and pulls out to reveal his face. Brilliant stuff.

THE BAD: There's nothing wrong with this film, at least for me. I can imagine some people getting offended by the violence in this film (and the meaning behind it) but I think they'd be missing the point. This film makes a topical comment about violence; better than your average action film which makes it all a cartoon and glorifies it.