The Best Films of 2009

UPDATE (Jan 2010) - After rewatching Synecdoche, New York I have reached the conclusion that it should be much higher on my list, so I will move it to number 2 of last year

Note: All films listed were released in AUSTRALIA between 1 Jan 2009 and 31 Dec 2009...even though it's not 31 Dec yet.

2009. Nearly over. Since everyone else is cracking out Best Of lists, I figure I might as well do the same. Who knows, I might even do a decade list as well. Depends how conformist I'm feeling.

10. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - dir. David Yates

That's right. I'm a commercial sell out. I enjoyed a Harry Potter film. Well, at least it wasn't Twilight. The reason that HP6 has made it onto my list is that somehow, the Harry Potter series was redeemed from the low that was The Order of the Phoenix, which just really got on my nerves. I can't remember why right now, all I can recall is Cho Chang shouting spells and me cringing. Hmm...anyways, HP6 is on this list not only because it brought back the HP series, the books of which I adored dearly, but also because in its own right it is a great film - the plot, characters, the visual style - it all seamlessly fit together and blew me away.

9. Synecdoche, New York - dir. Charlie Kaufman

My parents hated this film. My brother was confused by this film. In a sense, so was I. The reason that Charlie Kaufman, my favourite screenwriter, has his directorial debut on this list is because of its ambition and its ideas. Now, I'm eagerly awaiting my second viewing of this film and I have to admit, a lot of it went straight over my head. I'm sure there are a huge amount of clever little nuances that I missed, but still, the way Kaufman plays with the idea of theatre and acting and reality and basic themes of love and death is astounding. Through his usage of brilliant visual motifs (the flower tattoo, the diary) and the very clever story-within-a-story (or is that story-within-a-story-within-a-story?), this is a film that has fermented in the back of my mind.

8. Public Enemies - dir. Michael Mann

This movie was all about digital. The way in which it was shot. You either loved it or hated it. It either felt like a behind the scenes doco you didn't need to witness, or, in my case, gave the story this greater realism to it. I felt like I was there with John Dillinger as he fired at police cars opposite the bank. And that feeling is truly awesome. Another way in which Mann made his film engaging was the way he truly crafted the 30s-era world we were witnessing, instantly reminding me of the Coen's O Brother Where Art Thou?, albeit the films are in entirely different genres.

7. Star Trek - dir. J.J. Abrams

The action blockbuster became a whole lot cooler. Thank God J.J. Abrams was able to remain a shining beacon of proof that big budget action films could be entertaining, engaging and a whole lot of fun amidst the cinematic turdpile that was Transformers 2. This movie was so ridiculously cool, I mean they had the Beastie Boys' Sabotage playing in a car chase! What a song selection. I'm no Trekkie, I don't even think I've seen one episode, but the way in which the film played with the show's mythology (Nimoy!) and history just left me in awe of Abrams ability to create this great, thrilling sense of the unknown. He proved to us in MI3 that he could have an action film with great characters and plot, and he continued it here (with the exception of Eric Bana's villain...then again you can't beat Phillip Seymour Hoffman, it's just impossible).

6. Revolutionary Road - dir. Sam Mendes

Now I know a lot of people claim he butchered the book. I don't. Then again, I only read the book after I'd seen the film but still, I know what I read wasn't destroyed by Mendes. Richard Yates' seminal novel could never be completely and faithfully transported to the screen, but what Mendes was really able to get across was this "hopeless emptiness" sentiment in the book. We become emotionally involved in these characters' lives, we see their rise and inevitable fall, we are under Mendes' spell. He showed us in American Beauty that he could capture suburbia. In Revolutionary Road he did the same, just made it a whole lot more depressing. Also, I have to note that Michael Shannon's performance as John Givings has got to be one of my favourite supporting roles ever, he was amazing.

5. 2012 - dir. Roland Emmerich

Now I've really gone commercial right? 2012? What could I possibly be thinking? This is disaster porn, a film filled with over the top coincidences, cheesy dialogue, too many characters, not enough development, an over-reliance on aircraft. Yes it is all that. But it was awesome. This is a film that engaged me much more than what I consider it's nearest rival, Avatar, ever did. The characters here were interesting, easy to relate to, funny and most importantly, emotionally engaging. I never expected Roland Emmerich to make a film like this. Day After Tomorrow was pretty good, Independence Day was trashy fun, but 2012 is his masterpiece. You can't top that. It's the end of the world. And Roland Emmerich captured that destruction and chaos without sacrificing emotion or characters. Plus, John Cusack is the shit. Just putting that out there.

4. (500) Days of Summer - dir. Marc Webb

One of the best rom-coms ever. Right? That's what it looks like. It's not a rom-com. It's got romance, it's got comedy, but rom-com is way too general for this. When I saw (500) Days it reminded me of Woody Allen's stunning 1977 film Annie Hall. The way in which both films approached love was so unique, so interesting, so funny and, in a sense, candid, that you can't help but fall under its spell. Joe Gordon-Levitt was awesome (as usual...see Brick), Zooey Deschanel played a hard part considered how we are positioned to see her and she excelled. The supporting cast was hillarious, the soundtrack perfect, the plotting, albeit jumpy, was like a beginner's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and kept me interested. Overall, this movie left me with a smile on my face - we have another romance movie guys can watch and not feel guilty.

3. Watchmen - dir. Zack Snyder

The zenith of comic books. You can't beat Alan Moore's graphic novel. No way. Even V For Vendetta has nothing on Moore's original creation. Watchmen, the graphic novel, is a densely layered piece of literature, it's a satirical approach to the superhero, it's a meta-comment on society, it's got action, violence, sex and ridiculously intelligent thought. You don't see that combination often. Zack Snyder's film has nothing on the graphic novel. But that doesn't stop it from being an amazing film in its own right. With the exception of the appearence of Ozymandias and the altered ending, the film was all I could have hoped for in an adaptation. To see these brilliant characters, dialogue, scenes, sets, costumes, all come to life just made me so happy as a lover of Moore's original. It was a brilliant comic book to film success. It was this year's Dark Knight. Big call, I know. But I am willing to back it up.

2. Inglourious Basterds - dir. Quentin Tarantino

The first Tarantino I saw in a cinema. All others I had marveled at on the limited size of a TV. He is one of my favourite auteurs. Pulp Fiction is one of my all-time favourites, as are Reservoir Dogs and Kill Bill: Vol 2. Inglourious Basterds ranks up there with those films. It is all I could have wanted from Tarantino; the huge dialogue driven scenes, including a 15min opening that reads like a play and alone should get him Best Original Screenplay, brilliant characters, Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa - he must win the Oscar, Brad Pitt as Aldo Raine, Melanie Laurent as Shoshanna (it helps that she is absolutely beautiful). Tarantino's direction made this the most fun I've had at the movies in a long time. The over the top violence, the unnecessary
smash cuts, Samuel L. Jackson on narration (!), Tarantino knows what he wants and makes it happen. luckily what he wants is awesome. He is the only filmmaker I know that has the balls the call his own film a masterpiece from within the own dialogue of his film. That's why it's up here on the list.

1. The Wrestler - dir. Darren Aronofsky

A technicality. I saw this in 2008, in a cinema in New York. It came out limited release here early January, so it qualifies. The Wrestler is in my top 5 films ever. It is, to me, near perfect. There are scenes that I can point out that are perfect. I don't care that maybe that character type has been used before, Mickey Rourke made him unforgettable, I don't care that the character of the daughter wasn't developed as full as it could have been, Evan Rachel Wood was amazing in this. In addition to the characters, Aronofsky once more proves that he is one of the most gifted directors working today. This movie was shot on a $4.5 million budget. Juno was $20million. That should put it in perspective. The true independent feel of this film drives me to write, to direct, to create. It makes me want to just pick up a camera and go for it. The movie feels like a pseudo-documentary due to the raw emotion shown and Aronofsky's style of shooting. Also, best usage of Sweet Child O'Mine ever. Ever. The Wrestler is the best of 2009 simply because it told an amazing story in an amazing way. It was drenched in realism, it tugged at our heartstrings, it was all you can ask for in a character film. Randy 'the Ram' Robinson is a character that with one line can show to me the emotional pull of cinema: "I'm an old broken down piece of meat... and I'm alone. And I deserve to be all alone. I just don't want you to hate me"

Review - Avatar

Visuals make up a lot of one's enjoyment of a film. When they are mediocre, it's clear. But when they are absolutely stunning, so intricate, so creative and so just plain brilliant that they pull successive gasps from an audience, then you know you have a visual masterpiece on your hands. Avatar is such a visual masterpiece. James Cameron, the king of over-spending (pretty much the anti-Michael Bay in qualitative terms), has produced one of the greatest digital animation achievements in cinema history. However, a film is not its visuals alone. It is like a luxury car: if you have a flashy exterior, you are pretty much set. Everyone will stop and stare, marvel at the genius of its design, the beauty of near perfect manufacturing. But if you own such a car, as much as an awesome looking car will help you get laid, if the inner workings aren't just as good then maybe it's not all it's hyped up to be. See for Avatar it's problems lie not in basic features, like the cinematic equivalent of windscreen wipers or electric windows. No, it's problem lies in it's motor. The thing that pushes it along. The plot. You'd think that for $500 million dollars they could get a good script or perhaps (gasp) an original idea!

Let me stop my negativity there for the time being. Like (500) Days of Summer clarified its relative standing to a 'love story', I too must point out that this is not a 'hateful review'. Overall, I actually enjoyed the film. It wasn't a bad movie. Like a luxury car, if it looks good then you're halfway there. In fact, I'm going to tell you what I gave it so that you don't think I'm giving it Transformers 2-esque lows. It got a 3 1/2 out of 5 from me. More than double what Transformers 2 got. Coincidentally it cost double the amount Transformers 2 did. So I guess in comparison it was money well spent.

As that song that I can't remember the name of and played in those ads that one time goes 'accentuate the positives', so in the wisdom of that ill-remembered tune, I shall follow suit. Avatar is a fun ride. You remember how dominant James Cameron was at action scenes in Terminator 2? Now think of the small scale action of that and imagine an epic battle fought on differing fronts with aliens. Shitloads of aliens. That's awesome. Better yet, the weird and wonderful weaponry kept a huge smile on my face the whole time.

The thing about sci-fi films (as I pointed out in my review of Dark City "Rather, it is a testament to its imagination. For that is the key factor in defining the sci-fi genre"), imagination is the key...wait. Right. The quote already says that. Imagination is plentiful in this film. I will contradict this view later but for now hear me out. The way in which Cameron has crafted this world, this planet, is astonishing. The culture, the language, the natural wildlife, the forests, the plants, the spiritual presence, it's all breathtaking. The accompanying visuals are the same. What was a shame though, was that in a sequence of quick cuts between other areas of the planet, the visuals completely blew me away and made me want to see more of those areas. How he came up with all of that is beyond me. In addition to this, some scientific reveals throughout the film are also ridiculously cool. I don't want to say them now because then you won't get the kick out of them that I did.

In addition to his ability to create worlds, Cameron also creates characters. Sigourney Weaver is awesome. The main army dude, likewise awesome. The weedy scientist who also has an avatar, very well cast. The capitalist 'bastard' heading the operation, very well cast (with the notable exception of a 'subtle' change in character development nearing the end). Michelle Rodriguez, who I haven't really seen anything of since she left LOST, was also great. These characters that I have mentioned are great in their individuality. Not necessarily due to how they are written, but rather to how they are performed. These actors were just so damn good at what they did. Only thing that can really harm the ensemble cast is the lead actor being pretty mediocre. That's right, poor Sam Worthington.

He seems like a guy with a huge amount of potential. I've heard he has quite a presence on the theatre stage. But he couldn't hold an accent. He seemed like he was learning form the Russell Crowe school of hiding your Australian accent by having one of those 'I'm from the rough side of town' American accents but his native tongue came back to bite him. Also, his character was not compelling at all. We see his brother's death in the opening scene, thus propelling him to replace his genetic double in the avatar mission, but this is never used for emotional resonance. Why not? It would have been a great character trait for him. Instead we see a pretty happy, pretty ignorant guy who we assume has a 'good heart'. Which in this film can be substituted for 'morals'.

Besides his character, the overarching sense of right and wrong in this film was like a liberal backhand to the face (pun intended) as we were forced to appreciate the natives way of life and the evil, greedy capitalists are straight away set up as the bad guys. This, a concept that has been put in so many films, and in some surprising instances, with subtlety, just made the storyline predictable. Although, I must admit there was a point about 30min from the end when I thought it could have ended and had a completely different tone and shocked me, but then again it might have made the movie pointless. Continuing on, my main problem was the plot. If I wanted a story about the foreigner who immerses himself in another's culture and falls in love with the princess I would have either gone and rented Disney's Pocahontas OR I would have watched Terrence Malik's visual and storytelling masterpiece The New World (note: also about Pocahontas). Both of those films, especially the latter, handle both the moral circumstances and the love story a lot better. If I wanted the whole rebellion storyline made completely evident in the film's trailer - The Last Samurai is sitting on a shelf downstairs (thanks must go to Bren for this comparison). It seemed like a film held together by heroic cliches, we had our character archetypes, we had our training montage, we even had our extremely lucky scrapes (although this might be irrelevant considering my conclusion). There was no real originality, and this is what angered me the most. For a film that had garnered so many amazing reviews, it's lack of a solid, original plot (albeit it had an alright sci-fi premise) hurt it the most in my eyes.

Overall, I implore you to see Avatar. Just go for the sheer experience of seeing half a billion dollars on the screen. Go for the stunning visuals, the awesome supporting cast, the BATTLE! It was fun, to an extent. Now what I alluded to in the previous paragraph about coincidences should probably be void as a criticism because the film that I kept thinking of while watching this was Roland Emmerich's 2012. I enjoyed 2012 more (4 stars). Because, amongst it's cliches, admittedly stupid coincidences and predictability, it engaged me on an emotional level in addition to being this awesome, fun ride (essentially a B-movie premise for an A-movie budget). Avatar, sadly, did not have this emotional undertone. But then again, it is a Lamborghini with a screwed engine. You park that bad boy on the side of the street and stand next to it - you win at life. For a little while at least. 3 1/2 stars.

Review - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Transformers 2 was like a turd put on screen. Then, they light it on fire, which is interesting for like a second. Then they keep lighting the turd again and again and you get really tired of seeing nothing but a flaming turd, at which point you realise that all you are watching is a piece of shit.

That is my little summation of Transformers 2. 58 words was all it took for me to put together an accurate extended metaphor for the entirety of Michael Bay's latest opus. (The flames are the robot battles, if you didn't get it. See, I put effort into this thing).

OK, so to write something more in-depth as to my reason for believing that this is the worst film I have seen in a cinema. Ever. I knew that even before stepping into my local Hoyts I was going to dislike this film. All the reviewers I respect panned it. I disliked the first one (but did not HATE it - it was at least watchable). I hold nothing but contempt for arguments of "it's a mindless action film" or "it shouldn't be analysed, it's a fun film". So, confessing that much is a start. Yes, I began reviewing the film in my head before I started watching it, yes I began working out witty lines to use, some involving tire marks on the underpants of cinema, but all of that stopped about 30-40 minutes into the film. The first 30-40 min I did not hate. It was mildly irritating but still watchable. The parents were funny almost every first half of every scene they were in, but there was always something that ruined their comic relief. Megan Fox was hot. Period. And the supporting cast was pretty cool (read: just Rainn Wilson). Then I began to hate the film with a passion. Perhaps not at that point with the ferocity I hated it with nearing the ending.

Let me explain. There is a point in the film where our noble hero, his girlfriend and his annoying roommate are dropped in a car from the top of a warehouse. There is no magical robot arm that stops them, as I expected, but rather they plummet to the hard concrete floor at which point they are saved by airbags. How the fcuk did they survive that?!?! I know you are supposed to "suspend your disbelief" but that just pissed me off to no end. That was the 'nuke the fridge' moment of this film for me (for those who did not see Indy 4, the 'jumping the shark' moment). This film was appaling in terms of its plotting, the close calls, the coincidences. the COINCIDENCES! This film should have been called Transformers: Coincidences of the Idiotic. Everything that happened, supposedly "for a reason", as Shia LaBeouf says late in the film during a John Locke-ean transformation (read: I'm a Lost fan) that lasts like 2 seconds. Let's rattle off a few more coincidences in the film (SPOILERS):

• His room-mate being the website guy
• His room-mate having connections with John Tuturro's character
• When the two racist robots smash through that wall in Egypt
• The matrix being able to save Optimus even though it has never been 'used like that before'
  
• Arrival of The Fallen robot - just in time for a battle huh?
  

This movie was highly unoriginal, and by comparing other movies to it I fear that I may tarnish their names. The symbols? Seen it in Knowing. Which, by the way, did everything to do with symbols in a much better way and made it integral to the plot, whereas here it just faded away into obscurity, popping up now and then to create some faux mystery. (btw - Knowing is immaculate next to this film, but then again, I am in the minority who liked Knowing). Also, the Matrix might want some of it's visual motifs back. You know, the whole robot babies feeding off an energy source that could destroy humanity. And the insertation of a bug into his brain. That sort of thing.

How about that romance subplot? Wow, what a cliche ridden piece of shit that was. Yearning for the other to say "I love you" was about as mind-numbing as the continual robot fights. Megan Fox and Shia LaBeouf look so uncomfortable together, it seems as if Fox has just memorised her movements and tried to look pretty. Also, the whole Isabel Lucas thing was poorly done. Sure, she's also attractive, and Australian to boot, but she was orange. She must have stayed the night in a tanning bed. The way in which her role was dealt with was really bad. It seems like they stole that from the 'every-teen-movie-ever' book. Except this one involves robots. That makes we wonder, what would this film have been like without robots. Just ponder it...we would see a flimsy relationship, annoying, egotistical parents, awful dialogue, poor depiction of the government. Just about everything that makes any other film criticised. This film is saved by it's robot fights.

And what of those robot fights? How were they? Well, if it's any indicator that I felt able to look away from the screen at any time I heard that god awful metal 'clang' and recognised that the constant repetition was putting me to sleep. They were repetitive garbage that continually resulted in the destruction of a major world city. It's like watching a live-action version of Team America, except sans satire. With that, where the hell were the consequences. Hey you destroyed Shanghai! An American team destroyed Shanghai. Is that not fcuked up!!!!! It's called nuclear tensions. If America messed with China we'd all be a world of pain, or rather, nuclear winter.

Following on from my disappointment in the robots themselves. What the racist black stereotype robot twins?!? They were awful. And racist. And robots. WTF.

The film tired to be grounded in some sense of realism. Epic fail. Sure I can suspend my disbelief when it comes to robots, but the way in which they were integrated into the world of the movie was just plain awful. They got permission to use Obama's name as President. Dumb move White House. So, in the context of the film, Obama sent the cliche government type that every dumb blockerbuster has as a veil for anti-authoritarian thought. So Obama was the one who wanted to suppress the Autobots. So Obama didn't give them "hope" he didn't act to inspire or lead? He shut it all down? Really? In fact, every attempt to bring it to reality, the jokes about swine flu and the economy, were all awful. Even in my theatre, where they laughed at a guy getting tasered in the balls, those jokes got no love.

Let's compare to Transformers 1, which looks like American Beauty next to its counterpart. You know what made that movie interesting? The plot wasn't completely shit and the supporting characters were great. Jon Voight, the Australian girl and her computer guy friend were all great additions to that film. I even like Josh Duhamel in the first movie! He had a son and everything. But where's the kid in this one? Where is the scruples of emotional pull that even Armageddon had? (that's for you Zac) John Tuturro! He who annoyed the crap out of me as that stupid Sector 7 guy in the first one, was not as annoying here. Good for him. Still, he should stick to Coen Brothers films. While we're onto acting, Shia was fine, he's always been pretty good (except Indy 4). Megan Fox is hot. But she can't act to save herself. Hotness only goes far enough. No character had an arc with the exception of the annoying room-mate and Tuturro. Everyone else was static, or at least the character development was the exact same as the first movie.

Next on the list is the writing. Same screenwriters. Good start. The first one was shit but OK, if that makes any sense. The second one was one of the most poorly written films I have ever seen. Linking back to my rant about coincidences, that what the film relied upon. That, and some of the worst dialogue known to man. Examples:

• "We gotta trust him"
• "Let's roll"
• "Don't tell my mother"
• "I rise, you fall" (oh the pun!)
• "This isn't over!"
• "The matrix of leadership is not won, but earned"
  
• And the awful end monologue...
  

SPOILER: I actually laughed out loud when Shia told his parents they had to leave, in effect following the motif of an adolescent leaving home. How apt, since they are in Egypt with shit blowing up all around them, to talk about individualism and growing up. And who the hell writes in the dream sequence about the matrix of leadership???

I was talking to a friend a while back about Linkin Park's awesome career move when providing Transformers 1 with a theme song. Why? Because they were on the decline. Their album didn't sell as much as hoped for and they were going on of the public consciousness. But now, with Transformers they are getting back on top, they are on all the trailers, the radio stations. And they were given a second shot for Transformers 2, another way to bolster their career. And I think that maybe the song is better than the movie itself. If it's a case of artistic merit I fell as if the robot movie is clinging onto the Alternative Rock that is their theme song.

This movie is an advertising exec's wet dream. Let's not forget that it's all about the money. There was a poster of Bad Boys II (Michael Bay film) actually used in the film. Like it was written on, you couldn't miss it. Awesome subtlety. Also, nice to see all of the car logos whenever anyone transformed. Gotta love how these Transformers just adapted to the current auto retail climate.

How did this go for 2 1/2 hours? The Dark Knight goes for 2 1/2 hours and the only complaint I have against that film is that it tries to fit 1 1/2 movies into 1. Transformers 2 doesn't do that. It's distinctly the one movie. But it's stretched out way too long and has so many useless scenes. If that ye olde robot could teleport why didn't they just skip to the end from there. Could have easily been done. But wait, that would cut some robot action. Obviously necessary plot development there.

The Ending - SPOILERS

This ending was by far the worst bit of the film. In addition to the awful 'leaving home' motif and the Fallen guy rocking up like 40min after we see him leave and just in time to verse Optimus in a battle when the very reason he came back to Earth was because he wanted to avoid Optimus Prime. How the hell did OP kill the Fallen guy? It doesn't make sense. If OP could, and was killed, by a few Deceptacon henchmen early on, how come he can so easily defeat their all-powerful leader? The ending also allowed me to give this film the "worst set-up for another sequel" award, taking it from National Treasure 2's 'hidden chapter in the book' thingo. I can't believe they had the remaining Deceptacons bail after saying "This isn't over" and the US Army letting them go without a fuss. WTF. Also, the "you love me" moment is so shit it reminded me of the wedding at the end of Armageddon and the end monologue for OP was near exact the same as the first film...and who the hell is he transmitting to anyway?

Ultimately, don't waste your money. If you liked the first one on theatrical merit, don't watch it. If you like seeing shit blown up, watch the first 10min, close your eyes and then wake up for the last 10min. A film with humping robots, robo-testicles et al does not deserve to be praised. It deserves to be avoided and ignored. I fear the downfall of humanity is demonstrated merely by the success of this film at the box office. Want to see a good blockbuster? Watch Star Trek. That was fun, had action, and didn't halve my IQ. After seeing this, however, my mind is slowly numbing. Death, come and save me. Oh, and Fuck you Michael Bay for wasting 2 1/2 hours of my life. Now death come and save me. 1 1/2 stars.

Note: this is the longest review I've written. The second longest was for Watchmen, which I gave 4 1/2 stars. In the words of Billy Flynn "they'll love you more if you're hanged"

Review - Downfall (Der Untergang)

The very concept of a historical film raises eyebrows. How can one accurately re-create the past, objectively, unbiased, allowing the scenes to unfold as they did the day in which they were acted out? Plain and simple, they don't. A historical film should never set out to match the exact dialogue of every secret conversation held between key historical figures but rather obtain the essence of a relationship, whether factual or postulated based upon sources of historical integrity. A historical film sets out to inform the viewer of the occurrences of a historical event, or the life and times of a historical figure. It can never be perfect, it can never present the completely accurate essence of someone or something in less than 3 hours and to an audience otherwise unaware of the intricacies of said event or person. I know, getting into the theory of historical film is complex and tedious, probably involving me rambling on about the nature of creativity. In the following review I can't promise I will stay clear of such discussion. Sorry.

Tonight I watched the 2004 German film Der Untergang (Downfall), directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel and written by Bernd Eichinger. The film depicted the final days of the Third Reich under the rule of Adolf Hitler, with the setting primarily within Hitler's underground bunker that would serve not only as his protection from death outside but ironically encase his suicide within. The film runs 2 1/2 hours. Hitler doesn't kill himself in a climactic finale, he doesn't die in a shock opening. No, Hitler commits suicide with Eva Braun about 2 hours in. So what of the last 30min? How could such a drastic change in the scope of historical investigation with Hitler's death still leave the filmmakers with enough substance to continue? Therein lies the beauty of historical films.

This beauty is in the emotional resonance, or rather emotional connection that the audience develops from the characters within the narrative. In the case of Downfall, the plot does not focus on Hitler himself, although one could argues it does, I like to think it is a film that is grounded in different roots within Germany at the time. As the screenplay itself is based on two books, one by historian Joachim Fest, and the other (and in my opinion more important), one by Traudl Junge, Hitler secretary. The reason I place such importance upon the latter of these two texts is that Junge herself is a major character within the film and in my opinion is the true protagonist. We see Hitler through her eyes, the Holocaust is never analysed in depth, only in passing or in fleeting conversations. Characters, historical figures are shown as they were in her eyes, not evil men but those with some sense of nobility, perhaps influenced by her supposed lack of knowledge regarding the events of the final solution. In fact the depiction of these historical characters is near perfect. Well, one can never assert perfection in historical representation but rather I mean that the interpretation of these characters gave me a new perspective on the key Nazi figures I have been studying in my Modern History classes. This film allowed me these suppositions:

1. By the end, Hitler was insane
   
2. Speer knew about the Holocaust, yet was always presented as honourable
   
3. Eva Braun was very strange, annoying, seemingly lacking intelligence yet with some hidden sense of insight, perhaps derangement passed on from Hitler
4. Goebbels and his wife were vindictive, evil and power hungry
5. Himmler was depicted as being sly and scheming

And these are just suppositions on key figures. Before viewing this I had no idea as to who von Greim, Bormann, Jodl, Fegelein or Weidling were. I mean, I have no real personal insight to these characters, so naturally the film's depiction of Bormann will meld itself into mine. However, the film has given me a perspective, note not the truth, regarding certain historical characters and has now spurned me onto finding who these people were. For that is the main argument against historical films, that it will skew the public's view of history. But let us not forget that although Troy was a disaster in terms of historical accuracy, it did render any copy of Homer's The Illiad near impossible to find. These films create interest, stimulate the imagination of the viewing public as to the occurrences of an event.

Moving away from this analytical tangent I have to go back to this notion of the roots of Germany represented in the story. Within the film we see flashes of the horror on the city streets, chiefly through the eyes of a young Hitler Youth member. In addition to this, the scrambling effort to heal the wounded and deal with civilians is demonstrated through the character of Prof. Dr. Schenck, whose journey from the destruction of what appears to be his university, to his performance of awful "surgeries" upon wounded soldiers and civilians. It is these side characters, side in historical terms not in plotting, such as Schenck, the young boy and Junge that allow the audience to connect with a historical film. It is not merely a retelling of facts but rather an analysis of individual perspectives relating to an event.

And I must add that the casting for the film was amazing. Every role seemed to be well cast, I don't think I will ever see anyone other than Bruno Ganz as Hitler himself, I fell in love with Alexandra Maria Lara as Traudl Junge, the other major Nazi roles were excellent also. I must mention especially Christian Berkel as Schenck and Thomas Kretschmann as Fegelein, who were both in Bryan Singer's recent Valkyrie based upon their performances in this film. And it's not wonder why they were cast, as they stand out completely.

Ultimately, this was an amazing tale, the most interesting depiction of Nazi Germany I have ever seen, and perhaps of greater value to me than any textbook on the events. Why? Because the film not only gave me visual stimulus as to the events, highlighting relationships, interactions et al, it also provided me with the direct ability to react emotionally to the events, It seems that by fictionalising our past we ironically gain greater links to the truth. Anyone with any interest in the subject or anyone studying it must see this film. It is a masterpiece of the historical genre. 4 1/2 stars.

Review - Hot Rod

Cathy: Why'd you call yourself Voltron?
Dave: I don't know. Maybe cause it's super badass!

That is not intelligent humour. That is not clever, insightful, satirical, or any other note of humour aimed at a higher level of thinking. But in the context of Hot Rod, that line is amazing. It is hilarious, and even furthered my thought pattern that Bill Hader is actually a creationist deity. This is a film so deprived of intelligence and injected with stupid jokes that one would feel their IQ had dropped a gazillion points by its conclusion. But you don't. You don't mind this stupidity, you revel in it, you cherish it, and you shall never again forget the true power of a taco (but only if it's prison rules). This is better than any Will Ferrell film out there, with the exception of maybe Blade of Glory, it is comedic gold, all set to the pumping soundtrack of 80s hair metal and glam rock and executed by the comedy trio now world famous for jizzing in their pants, being on a boat, doing things like a boss, liking sports or even seeing the Chronicles of Narnia. That's right, this is The Lonely Island's film. And it's amazing.

Hot Rod is a parody of all of the athlete films, you know the ones. Where the perseverance of the protagonist, in any given field, is pushed to the limit as they strive to reach their goal, to be respected, to be honoured, to be immortalized. In fact that sounds like all of those Will Ferrell sports films. Well, Hot Rod was supposed to be the next in line for Ferrell. But when he dropped out, the film was passed onto Andy Samberg for the main role, with a supporting role for Jorma Taccone and directing given to Akiva Schaffer. The Lonely Island now had control over a film. They made it their own. They made it hilarious. Oh, and the reason that our athletically-challenged hero perseveres in the film? To raise enough money to save his evil step-dad so he can finally win a fight against him. That's right. Bet you didn't see that coming.

In fact, that step-dad fight thing reminded me of Balls Out, an as-yet-unproduced screenplay by the collective Robotard 4000 (read the script here), in which one character fights his mentally handicapped manchild every night. Yeah, it's not PC. But it is hilarious, much like this film.

This is a film that, not unlike Anchorman for many, will forever be quoted when seen. Cool beans? You know that phrase? Watch this movie and it will never be the same. And I know a lot of people love the family guy Cool Whip scene. Guess who they took the joke from? That's right, Hot Rod. The creators of Family Guy saw the film and appropriated the Whiskey joke in this film, which was filmed almost a year before the Family Guy episode. That fact alone is a testament to how funny this film is.

You like 80s music? Do you? Well I love it, it is of course a guilty pleasure. I am a big fan of Def Leppard, I have four of their albums, so when any film uses songs like (I Just) Died In Your Arms et al, it had better be awesome. The Wrestler is an example of where hair metal was used perfectly. That film, which is the greatest film I have ever seen in a cinema, used it as a reflection of the protagonist's heyday, his age of heroics and reminds the audience of the tragic state of his current existence. Hot Rod is an example of the only other acceptable way to use trashy 80s music - when dancing like crazy, or being used in an epic montage sequence (the one in the film involves marching and a song well known to us Australians. That's all I'm gonna say, you will be blown away). Ever done a dance-punch routine in the forest to the sounds of Europe? Rod Kimble has!

This film reminded me of Sex Drive. Not in tone or anything, but just my perceptions before seeing it. I went into Sex Drive having seen and loved the trailer, yet being grossly disappointed after reading the first 30 pages of the screenplay floating around the internet. However, when I saw it, they had obviously done a polish of the script because the first 30min were hillarious and I ended up loving the film. Same with Hot Rod. After hearing that it was just as generic and derivative as many Will Ferrell films I steered clear of it, yet a passionate defence of it on a film forum led me to reconsider the film. So when I saw it at the local JB Hi-Fi for $10, I took a gamble. Thank God I did. This film is one of the better comedies I have seen, ready to take stabs at itself, at the nature of many films, including other comedies, and with a supporting cast that is just hilarious. I mean - Danny McBride has not let me down yet, he was the best thing in Pineapple Express and nearly stole the show in Tropic Thunder, and Ilsa Fisher was a great casting choice, she seems to be extremely well suited to comedies (Wedding Crashers etc.). Bill Hader, well, just re-read my intro. Then there's the Lonely Island guys themselves. Just Andy and Jorma had main roles in the film but they are both great. You can really see elements of their videos throughout the film, especially in the sublime Cool Beans sequence.

This movie is comedic gold. It may be dumb but it is a cult comedy if I have ever seen one. It shall be quoted, copied, treasured for many years to come. It gives me hope for an 80s resurgence (even though I was born in 1992) and only furthers my admiration for The Lonely Island. For the second review in a row, I shall leave you with a quote: I'm kinda grumpy today, dude. I didn't get a lot of sleep last night. I was having those dreams again. Ya know, how it's just me in a castle and I gotta fight, like, a thousand wizards and the only way to beat them is to punch them as hard as I can in their faces. Then, when I'm done, all their little wizard wives came out and wanted me to have sex with them - which is kinda weird. 4 stars.

Review - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (Le scaphandre et le papillon)

Film has an intrinsic link to emotion. It draws us in with the major aim of allowing us as an audience to experience someone else's life, to allow us to make some connection, however drawn out, with the protagonist. The effect of emotion within a film differs. Some films act to exhilarate the viewer, others to humour them, and then there are films that truly give the audience a deep emotional connection, one founded upon realism and the gripping nature of humanity. Le scaphandre et le papillon, or, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, is one of the latter. It is a film so engrossing, so emotionally deep, that I must admit I was in tears come the ending. It was the end title card that did it. A sentence, two sentences in fact, was all it took. That is the mark of a highly emotional film, and in this case, a highly successful one.

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly surrounds Jean-Dominique Bauby, the editor of Elle Magazine in France. He lives a lavish lifestyle, has a beautiful family, girlfriend, job, possessions, everything. But as we see from the very first shot of the film, his life has changed forever. Jean-Dominique Bauby suffered a near-fatal stroke, paralysing all of his body bar his left eye. He is, as referred to through numerous metaphors, trapped within the confines of his body. His mind runs rampant, we hear his thoughts acting as a sort of inner truth, or as he puts it, "inner monologue". The film shows his voyage through the only two things he has left: his imagination and his memories. We are shown his family, his doctors and physicians, his friends, and through all of this the impact that this tragic event has had upon them all. This is not a light-hearted romp. Nor is it a film grounded in depression, much like this year's Revolutionary Road. Rather, this film fulfills the hook of emotion in that it draws us into another world, another frame of mind. And it does that brilliantly.

As I mentioned in my introduction, the film made me cry. There, I admitted it. Drawing tears from the audience is a mark of an emotional film. But then again, I cry at the end of The Truman Show. Every time I watch it. I think it's something to do with freedom and the escape from the confines a certain character faces, because that line of narrative is employed in this film. Emotion is drawn from moments. Moments in a film that truly encapsulate a feeling, a sentiment, drawing from previous circumstances, such as family background, the distinction of relationships, that sort of thing. In this film, there are moments that flood the viewer with a sense of hope and happiness amidst the darkness of Bauby's circumstance, and there are those of heartbreaking pain and loss. It is a film of extremes in some respects.

The film, like a film I saw last night (State of Play) also makes a stand for the power of words, creativity, the power of the author. The film is essentially told through Bauby's attempt to write a book about his circumstance, using his eye to blink at appropriate letters and thus form a word for his interpreter. The narrative structure is fractured, flashing between the present, the past, and the dreams of Bauby, which are filled with this sense of vitality and colour, keeping in clear contrast with the reality of his situation. Perhaps the most self-reflective moment in the film is when Bauby discusses writing a play about his circumstance, with the finale of the play being the character getting up and shouting "Shit! It was all a dream!". This notion of the playwright, the writer, all comes from his background as a journalist. But the thing that pulled me in the most regarding this theme of authorship was the language used. Bauby used complex and distinctly descriptive language in his book, which would have taken hours to spell out for his interpreter, highlighting his dedication to his own sense of creativity and work.

The most noticeable feature of the film is the camerawork. For the first 15 minutes, maybe more, all we see is what Bauby sees. We are looking through his eyes, hearing his thoughts, never moving out of this first person view. It is amazing how Julian Schnabel (the director) could manoeuvre the camera in such a way that its movement could so intricately depict reality, shown especially when we watch as one of our own eyes is being sewn up.

Another amazing feature of the film is the acting and characterisation. Mathieu Amalric (unfortunately well known for being the villain in Quantam of Solace) deserves some award for his performance, although he is not on screen for the majority of the film. His delivery is perfect, he becomes Bauby, the sarcastic tone, the emotional recognitions and when on screen, the amazing physical manifestation of the character. All of the other major characters are females. Reminiscent, albeit a tangent, of Felini's 8 1/2 (at one point they even use part of Nino Rota's score), in which through dreams and reality the protagonist has to deal with the relationships his has with all the women in his life. In this film, Bauby must face his ex-girlfriend and the mother of his children, his current girlfriend, the two physicians that guide him through a recovery process, and his interpreter, Claude, who gives us the title of the film through a beautiful metaphor.

The music of the film was great as well, incorporating both classical and modern, Western music. U2 even got a song into the film, as did Lenny Kravitz (who has a cameo). These songs are not used callously, no, they are employed strategically and effectively to suit the dream and memory sequences.

To conclude, I leave only the full quote from the film that both sums up Bauby's situation, but also gives us a perspective on what cinema is, what films would entail, what they should be. I decided to stop pitying myself. Other than my eye, two things aren't paralyzed, my imagination and my memory. 4 1/2 stars.

Review - Star Trek

I am not a Trekkie. I don't think I have ever sat through an episode of the beloved, Shatner-starring TV Show. And whilst a film adaptation of what many consider to be the holy grail of science fiction would appear to need some level of base understanding of the plot, the characters, the relationships from the source material, this film does not. And that is its greatest achievement - making it extremely enjoyable for everyone who doesn't know what the hell Klingon is.

J.J. Abrams is a creative genius. That man is some kind of demi-God. With the exception of a writing credit on Michael Bay's Armageddon (sorry Zac), he has never let me down. He created, with this film's co-producer Damon Lindelof, my favourite serial show ever, Lost. He made Mission Impossible 3, making Tom Cruise watchable even after leaving footprint stains on Oprah's couch. He produced Cloverfield, one of the greatest concepts for a film this decade. He produced What About Brian, a short lived American sitcom that I actually enjoyed! And I guess the very success of Star Trek can be attributed to a shark.

Yes, a shark. J.J. Abrams, in his lecture for TED, showed the scene from Jaws where Roy Scheider is at the dinner table with his son. Now, you may wonder to yourself what the hell a dinner table has to do with a battle in outer space, but there is an intrinsic link. Amidst the blockbuster that both Jaws and Star Trek are, characters are present. Characterisation is not left in the dark, but rather embraced, heralded, nurtured. It is the microcosm within the macrocosm of both worlds. Each of the characters had something. By that I mean they had a sense of self, of identity. All of the crew were great casts. I was a bit unwary about John Cho (aka Harold of Harold and Kumar) being in the film but he did OK, although I can't not think of his as that marijuana loving office worker. Anton Yelchin had an interesting Russian accent which proved humorous may a time. Bruce Greenwood (Pike), Karl Urban (Bones) and Zoe Saldana (Uhura) also had great roles. And then there's Simon Pegg! It's great to see him get some recognition via this role - if you've seen Spaced (hillarious TV Show), Hot Fuzz or Shaun of the Dead, you will know of his comedic talents, and they are put to very good use here. Speaking of comedians, look at Eric Bana, he went from parodying Ray Martin in Full Frontal to a Romulan rebel with some Mike Tyson-esque facial tattoos. Then there's Spock and Kirk, both really well portrayed by Zachary Quinto and Chris Pine respectively. Their strange relationship was great to watch. And their connection was only furthered when we met Leonard Nimoy - holy shit! Lost and Star Trek share a very common plot point in regards to his character. But alas, I shall not reveal to you what this is...unless you want to highlight the text below:

HOLY SHIT TIME TRAVEL!!! That was awesome. Even though I didn't understand most of the paradoxical explanations for black holes and the like, I thought it was cool. How childlike of me. The fact that we saw glimpses of alternative realities brought me back to a film I love, Richard Linklater's Slacker, and it's opening scene, where the notion of alternate realities is shown through dreams. In Star Trek, it isn't dreams - it's black holes! And whilst we are in this hidden section - what the Winona Ryder cameo?!?

In addition to this link via characterisation, both Jaws and Star Trek are blockbuster films. That is undeniable. With all-star casts and all the coolest effects of the day, both films are set out to entertain, to enthrall the audience. Star Trek can thus be seen as the archetypal blockbuster. We have our action, our fighting scenes, hand-to-hand combat, our romance and romantic interests (which, by the way, is very cleverly done), the great one-liners, self-referential quotes, basically - the works. It's a movie that doesn't let up. And it has 'Sabotage' by the Beastie Boys in a chase sequence!!!!! That alone makes up for the shitty usage of Aerosmith in Armageddon (sorry again Zac).

The only real qualms I have with the film are its last 10-15min. It all seems a bit rushed after the gargantuan build-up we have seen. It's not bad, it's just a little underwhelming and a bit cheesy. Well, then again, a team wearing multi-coloured shirts is reminiscent of The Wiggles...

I would not call it an amazing sci-fi film. As I discussed in a previous review of Dark City, sci-fi needs to engage with your thoughts, your mind, your perception of the world. Think The Matrix, think Blade Runner. But, I would not say this is a detriment to Star Trek. Whilst being an action film, and one grounded in the Star Wars-era narrative style, it doesn't adhere to all of the conventions of such a film. Now I could bullshit on about the essence of individuality, fate and the like, but I don't think that's what is necessary here. No, JJ Abrams did not intend for the film to be psychoanalysed, he intended for it to entertain, to mesmerize, to capture the attention of its audience. This film does not engage my philosophical thoughts, it does not make me think too hard about life, one's self, the role of humanity. This is not an intellectual film. But it's a damn fun one. 4 stars.