visuality.

The Best Films of 2009

2009-12-20T00:02:00.014+11:00

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

2009-12-17T22:41:00.004+11:00

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

2009-07-05T17:58:00.009+10:00

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)

2009-07-03T21:58:00.003+10:00

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:

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

2009-06-06T19:58:00.004+10:00

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)

2009-06-05T22:18:00.004+10:00

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

2009-05-31T21:01:00.006+10:00

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.

FilmArt - Fake Criterion DVDs

2009-05-11T18:05:00.001+10:00

OK, it should be well known to most people (movie buffs) that there is a company called Criterion, that re-releases DVDs in their own style, with insane special features and amazing cover art to boot, such as this really cool hand drawn cover for Wes Anderson's Rushmore.

So, in the vein of this, I have done up some fake DVD covers on The Auteur's Website, which you can check out in their forum.

Without further ado, I give you my Criterion covers for; Sunshine, High Fidelity, Slacker and Donnie Darko.

You can find the rest @ Flickr

Review - Dark City

2009-04-19T21:41:00.005+10:00

Subtitle: The art of Sci-Fi
Sub-subtitle: Reality is a bitch.

Just putting it out there from the get-go, Alex Proyas' Dark City would make my top 5 Sci-Fi films of all time, maybe even top 3. I guess it depends if the Star Wars trilogy can be counted. But I digress. The reason Dark City, just from one viewing, can rank so highly is a testament not to its design, it's aura or its acting. Rather, it is a testament to its imagination. For that is the key factor in defining the sci-fi genre. Where Blade Runner grounded itself in realism (to an extent) only to have this fantastical background of slavery and "C-Beams", Dark City explores the subconscious, memories, dreams and what makes us humans. That, is deep science-fiction thought. (Note: I love Blade Runner. It is probably my favourite sci-fi film, that sentence just sounded weird)
OK, so the very concept of Dark City is one that, like Blade Runner, is derived from classic mediums, whether it be the hard-boiled detective genre, or in the case of Dark City, mistaken identity. Amnesia is the kicker to this film's opening, where our protagonist (Rufus Sewell) awakens in a bathtub, in a room, in what appears to be a hotel, with no recollection of who he is or how he got there, and to top it off, a dead prostitute in the adjacent room. A phone rings and a short for breath Dr. Schreber (Kiefer Sutherland) is on the other end, warning our hero of some imminent danger. That is where we are thrust as viewers. It is a melting pot of cinematic elements; the serial killer and the ensuing investigation by Inspector Bumstead (William Hurt) echoes film-noir albeit a strange take on the genre, the crisis of identity of our hero, John Murdoch, can be compared to Blade Runner and the "Replicant mystery", the relationship between Murdoch and his "wife", played by Jeniffer Connelly adds a dash of romance to the tale and the strange men who control the city, both in time and space, are the Agent Smiths of this film. Yes. I made that comparison.

It took me two paragraphs to draw the line between this film and what appears to be its biggest...descendant. That's right. Dark City was released in 1998, Matrix in 1999 and both share so many themes. The anomaly in the system, the undefinable nature of reality, dreams, memories, machines, argh the list goes on. For both films, in their similarities, are defined by their creativity. Where The Matrix utilised the paradigm of every sports movie ever in training Neo (I bet you never thought of it that way before), as well as having a very unique style the contrasts the real world and the matrix, Dark City is defined by one word: sepia.

Yes, sepia is the word of my choosing, due to the fact that every second shot in this film is painted against a green/brown/sepia backdrop. That is why this film isn't fully a film noir per say. It is not because the Inspector and the investigation only plays a small part in the plot but rather that although the film has the dark streets, the smoke and every corner, it is eerie rather than mysterious. It feels slightly...artificial. And that annoyed me. Yes, the very rigid nature of this film's first 30min left me a bit jarred. I wasn't quite sure what to make of it, in terms of not only structure but plot. Nothing seemed to be happening, not much was being explained and then it was all made better. In fact, the successive revelations that occur in the film as we progress along the narrative path are astonishing and in fact give some rationale for the film's early rigidness. In fact, almost any mistake or problem with the film could be defended through its plot. Yes, where I said the plot was strange and isolated from the viewer, as soon as you get a taste of the truth, you want more. That is why this is an amazing sci-fi. The full mystery, the actual big picture is what makes this film.

And once more I move back to The Matrix. This film analyses reality, it analysing dreams and memories. For a film to go so far as to challenge our very perceptions of life, whether it be through proposing that we live in a false world or by slowly questioning the subtle nuances of characters, as in The Truman Show but that is a stretch, using previous dialogue to solve the puzzle of our circumstances. The way in which the revelations in the film echo previous events warrant a second viewing alone.

I watched the Director's Cut, and I suggest you do to. It contains some great little subplots and we get to hear Jennifer Connelly sing Sway! Whether or not that appeals to you, I don't know. Still, I suggest you go straight away and see it. Don't watch a trailer first, don't read a summary, in fact you probably shouldn't have read this review. Oh well. Still, go and marvel at this cult hit. It's well worth it. 4 1/2 stars.

Review - The Royal Tenenbaums

2009-04-13T22:34:00.003+10:00

Subtitle: An Ode To Creativity
Sub-Subtitle: Pagoda For President

It is not unknown that the films of Wes Anderson attract a cult following. Akin to that of the Coens, or to an extent, David Lynch, his films exude a sense of creative work or individuality. The reason I focus on the concept of creativity is, well, randomness. Another word to describe it is zany. Zany in the case of Anderson and the Coens, not Lynch. You see, last night I watched the Coens' Burn After Reading, which is one of the most pointless and random and zany films that I have seen. And yet that is in no way a poor reflection on the film, rather it is a compliment. In that film the very nature of it is lampooned within the film through the CIA scenes, and that is brilliant. After watching that I thought that how anyone thought up that chain of events and those characters was beyond my feeble understanding. However, after watching The Royal Tenenbaums tonight, my mind has been blown by creative possibilities.How could anyone possibly think that up? I mean, the narrative line sure, an estranged father tries to get back into the family by claiming he has 6 weeks to live. That part isn't too much a stretch. What is a stretch is the characterisation, setting and circumstances. As you may be able to tell, this is my first venture into Wes Anderson territory, with his inate ability to spin films out of the strangest concoction of characters leaving me baffled. The opening titles sequence, in which the childhood of the three Tenenbaum children is chronicled is done in a style so straightforward and simplistic, a montage sequence, yet set up in such a way that you can't help but be won over by it's uniqueness, and of course Alec Baldwin's voiceover.

The characters themselves are what is the driving force behind this film, from Gene Hackman's Royal, Anjelica Houston's Etheline (each of whom were perfect for their roles), the three children; Chas, the financial wizard, Richie, the tennis pro and Margot, the adopted playwright, all the way down to my personal favourite, Pagoda - the greatest butler/former bounty hunter ever. Each character had not only their costume, a motif that they strictly adhered to throughout the film, but also their very specific issues, whether it be grieving over their lost wife or having feelings for their adopted sister, with this film it is a mixed bag.

And not only are these major characetrs a source of inspiration in terms of finding creativity. Even minor asides, like Dudley, Raleigh St. Clair's (Bill Murray) subject of experiments, becomes weaved into the story and his involvement is at times priceless. Raleigh St. Clair! What a name! Even in the character's identities there is room for absurdities.

In addition to the acting, which was spot-on, and the characterisations, the style of the film was clear and engaging. As aforementioned, the opening titles were awesome, and all set to Hey Jude! I guess under the umbrella of style comes soundtrack, with the song choices of Anderson, ranging from Nico, to the Clash to lots of cool sounding songs that I had no idea what they were. I noticed that he uses a lot of music in the background of his scenes, at one point there were 3 different songs within 5 minutes, which I guess is kinda cool seeing as it wasn't necessarily overused.

And another mark of creativity within the film was the fact that it was co-written by Owen Wilson, who also acts in it as Eli, the neighbour. Being able to write and act is an awesome talent. Being able to act and write soemthing as absurd as this is awesome. Linking off that is the fact that his brother, Luke Wilson, had a major role in the film. That's awesome, Luke Wilson is a really solid actor and if you doubt his comedic skills - watch Idiocracy.

I would move onto a greater analysis of the film in terms of creativity but that would involve soem spoilers and would probably only capture the attention of me. So with that said, I strongly reccomend that you go out of your way to see this film. It is funny, absurd and will imprint the images of each character so firmly in your brain that if you ever see a guy wearing a red tracksuit, you will think of Ben Stiller. 4 stars.

Review - High Fidelity

2009-03-27T23:08:00.003+11:00

There is a distinct difference between a movie you love and a movie that is undeniably spectacular, amazing, breathtaking. That is something I have had to battle over in my head as I thought more about the categorization of films, that little number that rests at the end of each review or on IMDb. And to be upfront, High Fidelity rates a 4 1/2 out of 5. It is one of my favourite films hands down. And yet, it does not get 5. Why? Well, although I may enjoy watching it more that say, Chinatown, there is a distinction between what one loves and what is undeniably great.
I don't deny that there are problems with this film. There is no distinct or visionary direction, there seems to be rain at convenient moments throughout the film, there are small errors in the plot, involving certain people's names. Sure I may have criticized other films for similar problems, but there is something about this film that transcends that. It goes above the simplistic notions of good and bad. It is a film I genuinely love. That is something you cannot rate.

Based on my favourite novel ever (note: not the best written, that goes to The Road by Cormac McCarthy), High Fidelity by Nick Hornby, this film is one of few adaptations that can reach the heights of the source material. Although the setting has been changed from London to Chicago, British terms translated to Americanized versions (with the notable exception of "sad bastard"), the film retains what is at heart, at the very core of its creative essence: music and love.

First up music. Well, seeing as the plot revolves around a record-store owner and his failed relationships, there must be music, talk of the laws of the mixtape, snobbish and yet delightful commentary from the employees of Championship Vinyl. I love music. I am a music tragic. So much so that I always become more attentive when John Cusack utters the line "deleted Smiths singles". The conversations of music, the breadth of knowledge and depth of bands referenced, whether directly or in the background (yes OK Computer-era Radiohead poster) is always a stimulating aspect of this film. It is self-assured in its taste of music, ranging from The Beta Band to Marvin Gaye, the epitome of Rob's relationship with Laura embodied in the soul of 'Let's Get It On'. The scenes in the record shop are absolutely brilliant and, in a way sadly, sort of reflect my line of thinking. We have Barry, and obnoxious, imposing music fan who disregards Belle and Sebastian and barges into the store Monday afternoon to crank out 'Walking On Sunshine'. On the other hand, we have Dick, the excessively shy and musically knowledgeable introvert. Todd Lousio is absolute perfect casting for this role. His subtlety carries the character and from that so much humour is derived. An example of a lack of subtlety resulting in positive outcomes is Jack Black as Barry. That was also perfect casting. No one else could fill the shoes of that character. He is the prelude to all other Jack Black characters involving music (School of Rock, Tenacious D) and the best of the lot. And the Top 5 lists are amazing. Check those out, whether it be side one/track ones or whether it be songs about death, look them up.

So, with music covered, next is love. Where music acts as the refreshing side of the film, something that remains in the back of your mind, leaving you humming The Velvet Underground, love is what pushes the story forward. It is a tale of re-assessment. Our noble record store owner has been dumped, plain and simple. He has been left by his successful girlfirend Laura because he hasn't "changed". Now that through the filters of love or the absence of love has some interesting consequences, namingly contacting your top 5 break-ups and trying to find out where you went wrong. The novel starts with a prelude involving a detailed description of the worst 5 break-ups Rob has faced, starting with the 6hr coupling of him and Alison Ashworth in Junior High and eventually leading to the present. The film integrates these little moments to great effect. We see Rob's work, we meet the characters of our story and integrated within it are these moments, these reflections that shape Rob as a character and in essence, make him more relatable. And when he goes out of his way to find these lost loves we are taken along for the ride. It's love that forces Rob to re-evaluate and through a series of the best stream of consciousness I have seen on film (with the exception of The Weather Man's infamous "tartar sauce" scene). By talking directly to the audience, Rob's emotions, however wrapped and sheltered by his demeanour, are laid out of the screen and we truly see who he is, whether he is an asshole or a compassionate, devoted man.

Running with the stream of consciousness thing, the breaking of the 4th wall is one of my favourite film devices. It is used to perfection in Woody Allen's Annie Hall and the first person narrative style is how I write my own short stories. It is the personability of the creative work, the ability to understand someone, to truly see who they are. And in High Fidelity it is no exception. These brief and yet brilliant moments of truth shine through and build upon the greatness of the film.

The plot, albeit discussed in short above, is dealt with very well. The novel is condensed, and not in a bad way. The adaptation, by DeVincentis, Pink, Rosenberg and Cusack himself is great and it reinvigorated my passion for the novel itself. In the film the plot follows along different strains or routes of development, moving from the happenings in the record store, the situation between Rob and Laura and Rob's quest for inner realisation, with not a dull moment in sight.

It is hard to explain why I truly love High Fidelity. Is it just the storyline? Is it because of the book? Is it the superb acting? Is it the humour? Is it the musical references? Soundtrack? Analysis of relationships? Truthfulness? Relatable? Relaxed nature? I honestly couldn't pinpoint it. And why not a 5 out of 5? The recurring motif in the film is Top 5 lists. Well, it has it's problems, but I love it. And that's how it is. If I love a film its a 4.5, just because not everything can be perfect, and I guess that's how I like it. 4 1/2 stars.

Bracketeers - IMDb Top 64

2009-03-22T14:17:00.003+11:00

I found this awesome site called Bracketeers that allows you to create big polls about whatever you want. So, I took the top 64 films from IMDb's Top 250 and made it into a poll to see if the site truly does get it right.

So, please have a vote - and check up for subsequent rounds.

Review - Eastern Promises

2009-03-17T22:39:00.003+11:00

I don't really know how to start. Seriously, most of the times I know when I can or cannot sit and review something. This is a film that is leaning to the can't review section, not because it is bad by any stretch, but because I don't really think there's a burning desire for me to tell everyone I know to go and watch this movie, or conversely not to watch it. It is a very tight 1hr 40min watered-down gangster film. Think The Godfather, just a whole lot more minimal, and set in London, and with Russians. Oh yeah, and a naked Viggo Mortensen. That too. Essentially it was a crime film with many flaws, yet one that took a different direction than one would expect. In a sense, one could argue that there was a human side to this film, rather than just analysing the mob as some sort of mechanical construct it is instead the base for some very interesting characters, and then on the story.

But that's it, isn't it? This is a story not necessarily driven by plot but by characters. It wasn't the MacGuffin that was the diary of the dead girl that drew me in, but rather the contrast between London midwife Anna (Naomi Watts) and Russian mob driver and "undertaker" Nikolai (Mortensen). Each of the supporting characetrs had their own sense of self, which was great, Armin Mueller-Stahl and Vincent Cassel were superb as the mob boss and his son, with their constant bickering heightening simmering tensions within the mafia. Similarly, the mother of our midwife, played by Sinead Cusack and her eccentric Russian Uncle Stepan, played by Jerzy Skolimowski also provided essential motivation for the actions of our female protagonist.

So far I've just rambled around the film, but now a succinct plot summary: a 14 year old Russian girl dies whilst giving birth in a London hospital, yet her baby survives. In her pocket was a diary, having been found by Anna, a midwife. Anna searches for the family of the girl by trying to get the diary translated, yet ends up getting tangled with the Russian mob in London, specifically Nikolai, a mysterious driver for the mob family. As she uncovers the clues found in the diary she finds herself deeper into the seedy underworld of crime, putting herself and her family at risk.

There we go, a plot summary. Now onto some finely tuned analysis. So, besides characterisation, what made this film? I think it was a film defined in moments. I don't think every scene in the film was necessary or necessarily good, there were some scenes I thought were useless and others poorly done, but in some way these grievances were undone with some very vital scenes within the story. Perhaps the most noted is the fight scenes involving a naked Viggo Mortensen, two henchmen and knives. That scene defines both his character's determination and resilience but also finally shows some active directing and cutting from Cronenberg. I say active because the film's direction didn't really do much for me. There was nothing spectacular about it, it was just, for lack of a better word, mundane. Maybe I have some prejudice because the only other Cronenberg I have seen is A History of Violence, which I saw a few years ago and did not like in the slightest. I think that the direction is passable, but in some scenes excellent.

The reason I don't go into greater depth on certain moments is that a lot of them occur in the last third of the film. This was one of those films that built up over the duration, starting off slow and, at times, boring, it kicked into overdrive near the end, with the last 15min or so being some stunning work from all involved. That is one of the film's flaws. That it doesn't really have a strong sense of pacing, and whilst I enjoyed the rush of information nearing the film's conclusion, the lack of information in the previous 2/3rds didn't help. Also, stylistically the film wasn't always spot-on. The narration form the diary? That was annoying, especially in the beginning when no one had actually translated the diary yet, making the audience unaware of what certain characters do and don't know.

As I said before, it is a tad simplistic for a gangster film. Everything seems to be enclosed in little enclaves. And whilst some may argue that this only heightens the notion of secrecy, the fact is that everywhere was secluded. The hospital was near empty, there was no mad rush with any of the staff and there was hardly any activity in or around the building. Now this could be nitpicking but since when is a hospital ever empty? Also, the opening was wrong. The first 5min left me very diappointed. Not the barber scene but the hospital scene was too quick and everyone was so cavalier about what was happening. Also, a few moments in the film felt a bit too convenient. Like her bike just so happened to break down at that moment, and a few coincidences I won't go into seeing as they are very close to the end and could potentially be spoilers. Sorry.

Ok, well, in the last few paragraphs, I have been a bit negative. I can see that. But honest, the film wasn't bad by any means. It was a good film. Not a great film but a pretty good film. I guess to sort of compromise for the negative I'll take a closer look at the positives. The acting, as I already mentioned, is what held this film together. Viggo Mortensen was so consumed in his role that you forget who Aragorn is and just focus on this dark Russian gangster. Naomi Watts! She didn't do a breathy American accent as per usual (although that's perfect in Mulholland Dr.) and was English! Ok, enough patronising, Watts was excellent in her role, bringing the audience along with a sense of emotion that contrasted the brutality of some of the other parts of the film. Another plus? The little twists near then end. I knew something was up with a certain character but couldn't put my finger on it. When the reveal occurred I was pleased to say the least. That ending revitalised the film, with my attention now devoted to the plot more so than in the first half of the film.

So, this looks like a negative review. I don't know why this keeps happening. I write a 4 1/2 star review for Watchmen and it comes across as a tad negative. This one does too, however it will not receive as great a praise as that superhero masterpiece. Essentially, Eastern Promises felt too simple to be seen as a deep, though-provoking gangster film. Sure it analysed the nature of power and corruption, linking it with family, but isn't that what The Godfather did 30 years ago, and better? But overbearing comparisons aside, this wasn't "the greatest film ever", as a friend told me. It was good. But my small grievances aren't going away. 3 1/2 stars.

Review - Watchmen

2009-03-07T23:09:00.003+11:00

The wait is finally over. After an enduring advertising campaign, some absolutely stunning trailers and the sudden urge to go out and read the comic, I felt that I was more than prepared for Watchmen, Zack Snyder's adaptation of the Alan Moore masterpiece. Well, for me, it pretty much lived up to my expectations. Those being, that it was impossible to cover everything, and that I would love it, yet it would pale significantly in comparison to the graphic novel. But in essence, all of these factors were a given. Nonetheless, this movie kicked ass.

This was a film not made for the average cinemagoer. It was marketed towards them sure, but never made for them. It was made for Watchmen fans. That was clear enough. Because, if like me, you were a big fan of the graphic novel, you knew what was coming, you just wanted to see how they did it. The problem with not knowing the graphic novel is that you would go into the movie expecting some action-packed superhero extravaganza, and although Snyder recognised some need to cater for the masses, as evidenced in the overused "fight" sequences, this was not an action film. It was a philosophical one.

How, prey tell, could a comic book movie be philosophical? Like The Dark Knight's extremely philosophical ending, Watchmen has a message in its veins. Perhaps only brought out in its denouement, the message is always there. Snyder leaves little clues and hints, connections only noticed by fans of the book, and it is these nods to the original work that draw out its philosophy. Why? Well, at the end of each chapter/issue, Alan Moore would leave his readers with a quote that would show some message, convey a reasoning or perspective. Sometimes it was song lyrics, Bob Dylan came up quite a bit, sometimes it was Bible verses, but the most important of them all came at the end of the novel, a sentiment that echoes throughout the film and gives it its title, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes. Who watches the Watchmen?

That quote leads me to my first qualm about the film. The fact that in order to cater to the non-intellectual ticket buyers, clarity was paramount. And, the film is not clear in a basic sense, at all really. We have fragments from each offshoot of a storyline, following various characters on their personal escapades, with this fragmentation used even more so in the original graphic novel. But the reason this quote lies with clarity in the film is that they call themselves the Watchmen. To the average audience member, they notice nothing. To the fan, they notice everything. To recognise the quote and use it as a moniker is self-insult. It is the very notion that there should be no higher being, for corruption and deceit lies at every level. They were called the Crimebusters. Not Watchmen. I know, it's picky.

In fact, almost all of my problems with this film are picky. I could argue to no end about how the film fails in certain aspects where the graphic novel excelled but this would not make it a worse film, only worse than the source material. In fact, in order to rid myself of such qualms, here they all are; the last 20min had a different tone to the graphic novel, the tone applied wasn't strong enough, it only clouded Moore's original intentions, the connection between the Comedian and Sally Jupiter was wrong - there was no subtlety, subtlety in itself was lacked in this film. Also, the reveal of Rorschach identity was really poor, there was not enough buildup or intrigue, with the whole newsstand thing being pretty much ignored in the film. My other major issue is the squid. Or lack thereof. Lack thereof squid. If you know the graphic novel, you understand me here. If not, then it sounds strange. But the film's replacement for the squid was wrong. It was an unwelcome departure from the source material. Well, that's that off of my chest. Now to some positive stuff.

Wait. I just realised. I'm a few paragraphs in and I haven't even dealt with the plot yet. Well, I'm not going to restructure all of this so here it goes: It all starts with the murder of former masked hero The Comedian. What follows is the ruthless investigation by fellow hero and borderline psychotic Rorschach as to who killed him and why. In this, he draws into his investigation Adrian Veidt, the world's smartest man, Dan Dreiberg aka Nite Owl and with him comes Silk Spectre aka Laurie Jupiter. Add into this mix Laurie's lover, the demi-god Dr. Manhattan, and you have an interesting range of specimens for a study of heroes.

I guess in linking with that, the story is absolutely superb. Alan Moore's graphic novel is so original in style and in execution that the plot itself is amazing. With that comes the fact that Snyder was never going to be able to fit all of this into a 250min movie. So, some of the subplots had to be shortened or removed, and I think Snyder did the right thing in what he kept and didn't keep. His cuts were well thought out and only assisted in streamlining the central plot of the film. And his deletion of the comic-within-a-comic "Tales of the Black Freighter" was made into an animated film to accompany the film on DVD in the US, with the narration supplied by Gerard Butler.

Another great aspect of the film was the casting. These actors were their respective characters. It took me a while to warm to Rorschach but once I did I think he was the best out of the lot, Jackie Earle Haley actually making that growling Bale-esque voice sound fitting for his role.And although both Malin Ackerman and Matthew Goode, as Laurie and Veidt respectfully, were easy to spot as putting on accents, they still fulfilled their roles well. Plus, Ackerman is pretty mushc stunning, which helps. Jeffrey Dean Morgan, although not in the film for an extensive amount of time, left his mark. Patrick Wilson was great as the awkward Dan Dreiberg and Billy Crudup became the master of zen as Dr. Manhattan. The only real acting problem I have was whoever played Nixon. That was a bad impersonation.

How cool was the soundtrack? Anyone else love it when completely unnecessary Nena and Tears For Fears were played? I note unnecessary in a loving way. It adds nothing to the film. As much as I would have loved to see 99 Red Balloons turned into some sort of dark anthem, that was not the case, only some strange filler between scenes. But nonetheless, the variety in soundtrack was a very interesting feature of the film, something I did not expect at all. I had been told of the opening time lapse set to Bob Dylan's The Times They Are A-Changin' and that too delivered. It was very cool to see the historical interpretations involving these costumed heroes. And it provided some necessary background to some of the characters. I say some because one of the images gave too much away. In contrast to this foreboding intro, the soundtrack ranged from Leonard Cohen's cover of Hallelujah, set to an overlong sex scene, Simon and Garfunkel, Nat King Cole and even Jimi Hendrix. And of course, the credits. I had known prior that My Chemical Romance had covered Desolation Row for the film and although I saw the dark gothic overtones of that band as suiting the style of the film, I had no idea how well it would fit in with the final cliffhanger. The strains of their rock anthem reinvigorated the audience after a 2 1/2hr epic, and provided some kicking high note on which to leave the story. However, I didn't think Tyler Bates' score was anything special. Apart from the song played in the trailer, and in the film when Dr. Manhattan goes to Mars, the rest of the score was largely ignored in favour of the stunning visuals.

On that note, the visual effects employed in the film were great, something that is added to the buildup of reasons why I should go and rewatch the film in IMAX. The creation of Dr. Manhattan, as an isolated example, showed the tremendous feats of the visual animation team behind Snyder, who also evoked amazing visuals in the lackluster 300. Dave Gibbons, the artist on Watchmen the graphic novel, was a form of creative counsel for the film and it shows, with shots literally exact to the frames in the novel. The use of slow motion, although poignant in some instances, was overused in the film, as was the continual penchant for graphic violence. It's no wonder the film is MA, the level of violence is actually pretty shocking, ranging from split heads, protruding bones and even severed arms. What was even more shocking was seeing a mother with her couldn't be more that 8 years old daughter sitting a few rows ahead of me.

I guess on that note, bringing it full circle, this is a film with a certain audience. It was not made for the delinquents occupying the front row of the cinema, with a combined IQ of room temperature. They were very annoying. In contrast, it was not made for arthouse, french new wave loving movie snobs. It was made for the fans. And I think, if anything, Zack Snyder will achieve success for the film if it causes moviegoers to purchase the graphic novel. Even though Alan Moore has distanced himself from any adaptations of his work, this film is a very loyal replica of the novel. And for that I applaud Snyder. Now I do realise that this review may come across as seemingly negative or middle of the road. But I'm not. Honest. I'll prove it to you. 4 1/2 stars.

Trailer Watch - 500 Days of Summer

2009-03-05T09:58:00.002+11:00

OK - watch the trailer, then read my comments. Note: I am already in love with this movie.

First up - the opening segment. That in itself is awesome. He is listening to The Smths, probably my favourite band ever. They have references to The Smiths in the movie?!?!?! Also, Zooey Descahnel's character recognises The Smiths, giving us melancholy 80s loving tragics the hope that one day someone will stop us in an elevator and tell us how much they like the lyricism of Morrissey. Awesome. His expression when she tells him is priceless. And that, in a nutshell, is why I want to see this movie. Because it mixes awesome music, pop culture and what seems to be a love story, although as we are promptly told by the narrator, it is not a love story.

Also, the recurring timeskips are great. It's a really interesting and different take on teling such a story, and, I've read some of the script, so I know that it's not always flashbacks in chronological order. Also, the hints to musical bollywood-esque style look hillarious.

Best thing about that trailer, besides The Smiths, was the backing music. Talk about indie. Regina Spektor et al, it looks like we're gearing up for a great soundtrack. Argh, I can't wait.

Review - Million Dollar Baby

2009-02-07T23:23:00.001+11:00

This is not necessarily a boxing movie. There. Now that's out of the way, you might want to look beyond the basic plot premise of a female boxer on the rise and instead look at characterisation. Let's assess the DVD cover of this film. We have the three major characters immortalized in black and white, each looking off in different directions, each yearning for something, perhaps needing help, forgiveness or even companionship, but this desire for change is evident in all three actor's expressions. And this is what drives the film, pure and simple, it is the sublime interactions between these three pivotal characters and their own narrative arcs, delivering the best Clint Eastwood film I've seen.
This is, in the Rocky-esque sense, a tale of a female boxer who is too amateur and too old to be considered a professional boxer. Yet it is after her rugged determination to be trained by Frankie Dunn (Eastwood) that she finally gets her shot. And boy does she take it.

After noting that it gained the Oscars for Best Picture, Director, Actress and Supporting Actor, I am surprised it wasn't awarded any more. Screenplay perhaps? Clint Eastwood for Best Actor? I mean, this film, which many could consider Oscar bait (I don't), could easily have deserved those other awards as well because of how well done this film is and that the Oscar year of 2005 wasn't that amazing. The lead actors are all outstanding and, as mentioned above, Eastwood probably deserved the statue any other year, but Jamie Foxx beat him to it with Ray. Eastwood's performance is subtle, measured and, after getting past the "angry old guy" phase in the first half of the film, near perfect. Morgan Freeman consumes himself in the role of Scrap, the gym manager, and with great results, albeit an ever present Shawshank-like narration. But ultimately, this film rests upon the shoulders of Hilary Swank as Maggie, our heroine. She is immaculate in this film, her performance is so perfect that there was no one else that could have played that part. Her character development from act to act is excellent and, even in the third act, she retains her sense of character despite restrictions.

The film relies upon scenes that stand out and show us who these people really are, not only the fight scenes, but also just scenes of confrontation, where Maggie returns to her family with good news, where Clint Eastwood sits in solitude putting away letters his daughter has marked 'Return to Sender' and where Morgan Freeman steps up to defend the clumsy Danger (awesome supporting role from Jay Baruchel). These moments show us who these people really are and that is what counts.

The cinematography and lighting for the film is great, setting up moody scenes, building the dark hues already embedded within the plot line and conveying the raw emotions of these characters in a heightened sense. Eastwood's direction is also very commendable, being able to capture both these brutal fight scenes and also poignant dramatic moments.

The Paul Haggis-penned screenplay, although a tad cliche throughout, still holds up with some great interactions between characters and the evolution of each of the characters throughout the film. As already mentioned, Freeman's narration did get a little tiring, at some moments it was perfectly executed, yet at others it became a nuisance.

And where the first act may be too slow in its build up, or at the least, not detailed enough on the part of our protagonist, the third act makes the film. It is not often that a third act completely changes all of the themes of a film but Million Dollar Baby does this. The second plot point that starts Act 3 is a sweeping change in the direction of the plot and shows us who each of these characters really are. I recognise that I am being very vague about this but I don't want to give anything away, besides the fact that it poses huge moral questions and forced a teenage movie geek to tears. 4 stars.

Trailer Watch - Breaking Upwards

2009-02-06T19:30:00.004+11:00

Yes, that it correct - this Trailer Watch will contain only one trailer. And why? Because it's absolutely AMAZING. Breaking Upwards is a semi-autobiographical (we aren't really sure though) tale of two lovers (played by filmmakers, Zoe Lister-Jones and Daryl Wein) in the city that never sleeps, who, in order to fend off their glaring codependency, decide to intricately plan their breakup, in a sense unraveling the monogamous constraints placed upon relationships in modern life. Yes, that sounds complex, but that doesn't take away from it looking AMAZING. Did I metion it has Juno's Olivia Thirby in it?

I was thinking about this trailer and I couldn't help but think of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, in terms of how relationships are diffused in differing ways, often with disastrous, albeit always intriguing consequences. I think I love this film already, nothing could make me hate it - even if the film was subpar (which I am certain it will not be) - it is the very essence of its originality that draws me in.

And look at this trailer, it has a great soundtrack to it, awesome dialogue, characterisation, laughs and emotions pouring out of it i.e. perfect formula for indie gold.

Only problem is, this film is showing @ the SXSW festival this year, which inevitably means we won't get to see it over here in Australia for a while - which is very saddening to me. Also saddening on the indie/absurdist front: where the hell is My Winnipeg? Someone please release it over here - I am dying to see it!

also - you can find it on youtube here.

Review - Across The Universe

2009-01-27T19:49:00.003+11:00

I am going to give full disclosure here: I'm a sucker for rock musicals. I loved We Will Rock You, Ben Elton's Queen musical, I adored Moulin Rouge's integration of popular music into the plot and I myself have dabbled in this area, writing a Pink Floyd musical for a year 9 English project. So it was no surprise that I absolutely loved the Beatles' inspired Across The Universe.
It's a tale of two lovers, a dock worker in Liverpool who goes to the USA in search of his father and an American student caught up in the anti-war movement of Vietnam. Yes, that's right, the Beatles' songs play to the backdrop of Vietnam. Yet this context, although important to the plot in some aspects, is not as important to the feel of the film. It is a timeless story of love and loss, with the message, however predictable, "All You Need is Love".

Our lovers, both for differing reasons, move to New York with the help of Lucy's brother Max (Joe Anderson) to change themselves and, in some sense, discover who they are. From here we see the infusion of music not just as a soundtrack but also as a feature point, with the inclusion of the Hendrix-like guitarist Jo-Jo (Martin Luther McCoy) and the Janis Joplin-esque Sadie (Dana Fuchs). Even an emotionally conflicted Prudence (T.V. Carpio) has a dabble on the keyboard. And these musical characters are developed to the fullest (with the exception of Prudence), they too have a detailed subplot all of their own. I've you've noticed that two characters, both Sadie and Prudence are taken straight from Beatles' songs, just wait till you hear our lovers' names: Jude and Lucy.

The plot then turns political, looking at the pursuits of Lucy in the anti-war movement whilst contrasting the artistic endeavors of Jude. Yet this does not burden the plot, it lifts it, gives it more body and delivers us a roaring rendition of 'Revolution'. Do not think these songs are just wasted. Some may seem feigned ('Dear Prudence') or very strange (Bono's 'I Am the Walrus' and Eddie Izzard's '...Mr. Kite'), but others are absolutely perfect. 'Something', the aforementioned 'Revolution' and the uplifting 'All You Need is Love' are absolutely sublime. In some respects, new meaning is given to these songs, with 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' now a ballad for the lonely. Yet there is one undeniable realization form all of this - The Beatles wrote some of the greatest love songs ever. When Evan Rachael Wood (who is absolutely gorgeous in this film) and Jim Sturgess, as Lucy and Jude respectively, begin these ballads, the words are brought new life in their context and the Beatles' genius is only furthered.

The direction is great as well. I was a bit shaky during the opening, what with the strains of 'Helter Skelter' destroying a very emotional opening shot, yet Julie Taymor, who directed the theatre production of The Lion King, brings a vivid colour to the film, with amazing visual effects sequences accentuating both the music and the scenes in which they occur. The amazing army enlisting scene is choreographed to perfection, the strawberry sequence (you won't forget it) and even the dancing on the streets of New York all show the bravado of the film. In some aspects the film goes a little too far with the artistic vision, such as the Mr. Kite sequence and the interpretive dance.

The plot may have holes, or unnecessary elements. There may be not enough depth to the anti-war movement of the Vietnam era. There may be too much catering to the songs than the story. But I don't really care. It was an amazing experience, a unique experience in a film, to transform the songs of the greatest band in history into a coherent and emotionally engaging plot is a feat of its own. 4 1/2 stars.

Review - The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen)

2009-01-26T23:28:00.003+11:00

It is 1984. Perhaps from the context alone, you can see the Orwellian concepts evoked from Das Leben der Anderen. In a similar vein to Orwell's creation of the "Big Brother" or overarching power, in the setting of East Germany, the Statsi, acting as the secret police of the GDR, have the power. They observe and report, deal with traitors or critics of the regime swiftly, with the very notion of a moral compass derided. These Statsi observers watch suspects day and night, familiarising themselves with their subjects, or rather targets, whilst losing their own sense of self. But what would it be like if there were some change to this. Not from any outside force but from within. Is is possible for a man to change who he is to salvage the livelihood of someone else?
That is the question posed by the directorial debut of Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, who also wrote the film. It is a dissection of one man, Statsi operative H.G. Wiesler, a man with a cold efficiency, lack of emotion or care and who now has been put in charge of investigating a seemingly patriotic playwright, Georg Dreyman. We watch routine unfold, as Wiesler seizes complete surveillance of the life of this man, and to him it is but a job, nothing more, he is a 20 year veteran of his position. However, something changes within him, maybe it's his longing for the relationship Dreyman and his actress girlfriend Christa-Maria, or maybe it's a change of ideology. This question is presented.

With the concept of a writer and the suppression of artistic materials, I was surprised at the level of dissection involving the arts and theatre within the film. There are references to German poetry, beautiful sonatas I found myself comparing the situation of the blacklisted director Jerska, very similar to that of Vsevolod Meyerhold, the Russian practitioner executed at the hands of Stalin's regime. I guess, in a somewhat ironic sense, it is referenced in the film that it was Stalin who said "The writer is the engineer of the human soul". In saying that, this is a film that captures the setting it is in, the secrecy, the darkness and the corruption of the elite.

The background of the film does not hide this history, with many of the cast and crew having personal conflicts with the GDR, most notably Ulrich Mühe, who has claimed that his ex-wife informed on him to the Statsi when they were in power in East Germany, citing a mass of government files detailing her co-operation.

The acting in this film is perfect. It truly is. Every character is perfect for their respective roles and they are all well-rounded characters, complete with aims and goals within the film. The main actors, that being Sebastian Koch as Dreyman, Martina Gedeck ad Christa-Maria and Ulrich Mühe as Wiesler are astounding, with Mühe in one of the greatest embodyments of change and human morality I have seen. Even the smaller characters, such as Thomas Thieme's Minister Hempf and one of my favourites, Hans-Uwe Bauer as Dreyman's close friend Paul Hauser, each have their own nuances that make every scene, most of which was laced with lengthy dialogue, a pleasure to watch.

One of the greatest things about this film is it's ability to contrast. Light and dark, good and bad, sadness and happiness. This contrast is greatest embodied between Dreyman and our observer. As we watch his drive home to his apartment, watch him sit alone at the television, after just witnessing the passion of artists we see his shell begin to crack. And whilst the observation of Dreyman is the main focus of the narrative, he is not the main character. That distinction is given to the observer, HGW XX/7, as he is known in his reports. His insular retreat is probably the most extroverted he has ever been, with one act of intervention causing a tumulus chain of events to unfold, in both his and Dreyman's lives.

My only grievances with the film were near the end. There was a plot twist, albeit small, that should have been dealt with better, whether it needed to be filmed better or the context changed I don't know. it just felt a bit rushed in the last 20min, like they were trying to fit in more than they should have. But hey, it won the Oscar for Best Foreign Film in 2007, so I might be alone with that criticism. 4 stars.

Review - Revolutionary Road

2009-01-24T00:21:00.007+11:00

This is probably the most depressing film I have seen. Probably. Most depressing films I think I try to block out of my memory, less they come back to haunt me in my sleep. Revolutionary Road, however, is not a film that I can just block out, it's more than just a very sad story. What it has going for it is emotional depth that is near unparallelled in most films I have seen. And even more so, the overarching reason that this film won't just fade away into the abyss of my memory is that even though it is set in the conformist 1950s, everything in it applies today. There is no escape from what seems to be a timeless narrative that shows life as it is.Directed by Sam Mendes (American Beauty) and based on the iconic Richard Yeats novel, Revolutionary Road is about a relationship that disintegrates. Now although this seemingly simple concept has been replayed over and over in movies, this film makes it that much more complex. Not complex in the sense of incomprehensibility (is that even a real word?), but rather emotionally, channelling simple events as they build to an explosive analysis of love and life in the so-called "American Dream". The plot surrounds the attempts of a married couple to escape their suburban lifestyle and flee to Europe, to really "live", where they are held back, ultimately, by themselves. We see April and Frank Wheeler fall from their happy, hopeful marriage to the tatters of reality, with Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio truly bringing these characters to life without any sense of falsehood.

It is not just the leads that hold the film, although Winslet could by herself. The supporting cast is great, with Kathy Bates as the realtor who sold them the home, yet maintains a personal connection, the neighbours, played by David Harbour and Kathryn Hahn, Frank's workmates, headed by the ever-enjoyable Dylan Baker and most of all, the mentally impaired son of Kathy Bates' character, Michael Shannon, who for a very limited amount of screentime (maybe 5 min?) was absolutely stunning (gaining an Oscar nom.) and in a very Shakespearean sense, fulfills the role of the voice of reason.

Another aspect of the film that resonated with me was the score. In certain films, the score can go unnoticed, maybe this is a testament to great film-making, or maybe there aren't a huge amount of scores that really matter. The haunting melody that became the orchestral backing for the film was exactly that, haunting. At harrowing moments it would float back into the air and just prove the repetition of these actions and, in a sense, the everlasting cycle. Coincidentally, the last time I remember pointing out the score of a film positively was when I saw Atonement at the start of 2008. This is a coincidence because the film I most associate with Revolutionary Road is Atonement. It has the same melancholy feeling to it, the harsh nature of reality and the impact of certain choices on one's life are both prominently featured. But where Atonement would slap you on the face and wake you up to reality, RR lets it sink in gradually, making it all the more uncomfortable to watch, especially nearing the end.

The direction was well suited to the film, with Sam Mendes a veteran of suburban chaos after the amazing American Beauty. However, it came to my attention that the film felt a lot like a play. Maybe this is because Mendes was originally a prominent theatre director before transitioning to film, but maybe it is because of minimalist locations, a large focus on dialogue and character development and a small amount of core actors. It is from this that I look at the screenplay, adapted by Justin Haythe. Now I haven't read the novel, though I will read it ASAP, but it feels like he did a good job, the film didn't feel empty or flat and the dialogue was very revealing.

Ultimately, this is not a feel-good film. This is not a film you can watch over and over again. This film hits hard and perhaps makes us realise the depressing state of affairs in some marriages and in life itself. It is, however, well worth a viewing, if not for the message, for the acting, the subtlety, the layers of irony and the feeling you get walking out of the cinema after 2 hours of emotional heartbreak. 4 stars.

Review - Almost Famous

2009-01-19T00:05:00.004+11:00

Never has a film made me want to listen to Elton John more. After watching Almost Famous, I rushed up to my bedroom and listened to the full 6 minutes of Elton John's Tiny Dancer. It was just an instinctive reaction to what I had just seen. That song is so full of beauty, and that beauty made even greater by one scene in the film, where the up and coming band Stillwater is on the tour bus and this song comes on the radio. Everyone is affected. Slowly, one by one they start singing, the bassist, the girls, the drummer, our hero the reporter and then finally, the mysterious guitarist recovering from an acid trip the night before. Oh yes, Almost Famous covers it all. And a busload of people singing Tiny Dancer is all we need to see the true power of music.
It is this power of music, intertwined with love, lust, fame and friendship, that becomes the concept around which the film revolves. We see fresh-faced 15 year old William Miller (Patrick Fugit), a budding rock music reporter, being given the opportunity of a lifetime: write for Rolling Stone. So he goes on tour with the almost famous Stillwater, much to his overbearing mother's fear, and truly experiences the rock lifestyle and its impact upon music. He meets Penny Lane, a "Band-Aid" (note: not a groupie by name...), who with her group of girls acts to affect the music of the bands, and takes her along with him. Oh, I forgot to mention, it's set in 1973.

It is 1973 and that time is of so great an importance to the film. As Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who plays rock critic Lester Bangs tells William, rock is on the way out, commercialisation is on the way in. There is an inherent fight to find the meaning of the music, what music is all about. We follow William through concerts, tour bus trips, wild parties and a disastrous plane trip, seeing through his naive and innocent eyes, the very nature of rock music. Essentially, whilst also being about the music, that acts as the background, the setting, for a coming-of-age story like no other.

The film is very much personal to writer-director Cameron Crowe, who based this script (for which he one the Oscar in 2001) on personal experiences, travelling with the Allman Brothers in the 70s for Rolling Stone. With such an intimate connection between the director and the subject matter, what results is a very personal movie. It is deep with emotion and yet never dull or boring. We empathize with William, we see him for what he truly is, a fish out of water, yet ironically the only one who can see the truth.

The band itself feels real. We have the disputes between "frontman" Jeff (played by Jason Lee) and the lead guitarist with all of the popularity, Russell (played to perfection by Billy Crudup). We have the prospects of getting big and its impact upon the band's decision making, often resulting in burning some bridges. But one of the most real things about the band is thise who follow them - the Band Aids. Led by Penny Lane, played by Kate Hudson (in a role which earned her Best Actress at the Golden Globes), this group of girls is always there when the music happens, they are all free spirits that are along for the ride, acting as counterpoints to the often conservative William.

The soundtrack is gorgeous, as aforementioned in my opening paragraph. Elton John, The Who et al, we are gifted a compendium of gems straight out of the 1970s. Cameron Crowe knows his music. But its not just the soundtrack and the acting and the nature of music that draws me to this movie. It's a sense of connection, an ability to relate to the main character. Not in any circumstantial sense, but in the very perception of us. Lester Bangs says to William, The only true currency in this bankrupt world... is what you share with someone else when you're uncool, with this concept of the individual and doing what you want to do, being what you want to be, both underlining the very nature of rock music, but also the story of a young guy trying to accept himself for who he is. 4 1/2 stars.

Review - Natural Born Killers

2009-01-12T23:09:00.007+11:00

Just putting it out there from the get-go, this is probably the most insane movie I have ever seen. Ever. Insane, not as in a "this is so insane!!" positive, although the film is indeed very insane in that term also, it is insane in the sense that it feeds off of chaos and violence and media and blood and guts and sitcoms and network tv and news and current affairs and most of all, mass murderers.
First up, a bit of background history. Written by Quentin Tarantino in the early 90s and then sold off to two Hollywood producers, it was brought to the attention of Oliver Stone, the prolific political filmmaker. Now Tarantino wanted to direct the film badly, but after selling the script, he really had no say at all. The script was then rewritten by Stone and some others and remodelled to suit his style and Tarantino reportedly 'disowned' the project (he still recieves a Story credit). Now don't immediately take the side of 'injustice', that's just how the business works. And maybe it turned out for the better anyway, because this is Stone's most ambitious project to date.

The story revolves around Mickey and Mallory Knox (Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis), a deranged couple hellbent on killing anyone that crosses them. There is no motive to these killings, only natural instinct and passion. We follow their killing spree, as does egomaniac crime reporter Wayne Gale (Robert Downey Jr.) until they reach the dead-end of jail. Or is it?

First off, the direction. A major part of my calling this film "insane" is due to the fact that it is so experimental in nature. With almost every scene in the first half of the film splattered with some form of media saturation, the message of our obsession with television is made very clear. Stone uses juxtaposition of violence and television to drive home our penchant and thirst for violence, our desensitization, if you will. The greatest example of this is a parody of I Love Lucy, containing hints of rape, incest and horrific murder. This film wasn't meant to be quietly heard and understood. This film was meant to wake you up. And it does just that. It depicts fan clubs of the two murderers, teenagers protesting their incarceration. This film acts to show us the heights of criminal celebrity, and of course, the absolute absurdity of it all.

The acting is outstanding. I have always like Woody Harrelson in his supporting roles, most notably in No Country for Old Men, however in this film he is allowed to shine as the star of the show. He brings vividly to life the desire to kill and the impact it has upon the killers. Similarly, Juliette Lewis as Mallory is also excellent in truly showing us a mental destabilization taken to the next level, that level being murder. Tommy Lee Jones is very entertaining as the Warden of the jail, and Tom Sizemore does a good job as Scagnetti, the obsessed detective who brought them in. However, the cream of the crop is Downey Jr. So far I have never seen him set a foot wrong in film. His portrayal of Australian (that's right, Australian, with a near flawless accent) media hound Wayne Gale embodies the entirety of public obsession and the exploitative nature of the media business.

The soundtrack is also a notable feature, having been produced by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, the soundtrack rips through modern industrial and 60s folk music, providing a contrast between the ages of television. Where Leonard Cohen would provide soothing ballads to juxtapose the horrific violence, Nine Inch Nails would ram it down our throats.

This film is not for the feint of heart. It is a crazy ride through murderous minds, complete with a satiric social message. They're not insane, no, it was just what they were born to do. 4 1/2 stars.

Golden Globes

2009-01-12T15:36:00.009+11:00

OK, time for a summary of the Golden Globes. That's right, I'm in a position to make a summary. Instead of working on anything remotely educational or in fact beneficial, I spent 3 hours watching the Golden Globes live. Fun life, huh?

Basically, I'm just gonna go through the categories and their winners and give you my own opinion. So, here we go:

Best Supporting Actress: KATE WINSLET (The Reader)
Best Actress - Drama: KATE WINSLET (Revolutionary Road)

So, I've grouped these two together for one obvious reason: She won both frickin' awards! Holy crap! I haven't seen either films but have been looking forward to yet another take on crumbled families from Sam Mendes (American Beauty), that being Revolutionary Road. Also, the big surprise of the Globes was probably Winslet's win for Best Actress - Drama, beating out hot favourite Meryl Streep (Doubt) and close second Anne Hathaway (Rachel's Getting Married).

Best Original Song: THE WRESTLER

Fuck yeah!!! I was over the moon when I heard Springsteen's name read out. Suck on that Peter Gabriel! This song is so perfect for the film, it was just so moving to hear it play at the end of The Wrestler, the lyrics were absolutely sublime.

Best Animated Film: WALL-E

It was always going to win it. No doubt about it. It was up against Bolt and Kung Fu Panda. Even though I didn't really enjoy WALL-E as much as everyone else, it was still head and shoulders above its competitors.

Best Actress - Musical/Comedy: SALLY HAWKINS (Happy Go Lucky)

This was a bit of a surprise as well, Meryl Streep's first loss of the night was to this darling british film which has gotten some great reviews. Again, I haven't seen this one but ahve only heard good things for both the film and it's lead actress.

Best Supporting Actor: HEATH LEDGER (The Dark Knight)

*Standing Ovation* This performence wasabsolutely amazing and he was the clear winner out of his category (sorry Tom Cruise). His amazing transformation into the Joker is a role that will go down in cinematic history, a sentiment made clear by Christopher Nolan, who recieved the award on Ledger's behalf.

Best Foreign Language Film: WALTZ WITH BASHIR

Haven't seen it. Looks amazing though, an animated film from Israel that tells a horrific tale of war and its impact upon one individual.

Best Screenplay: SIMON BEAUFOY (Slumdog Millionaire)

Well deserved, this was a great script that really made the film a lot more fluid than you'd imagine from reading the plot summary. We had well constructed characters and relationships, some great plotting and an amazing ending that will lift your heart up to the heavens.

Best Original Score: A.R. RAHMAN (Slumdog Millionaire)

This was also well deserved. This score was bouyant and uplifting, bringing the cultural tone of India together with M.I.A's vocals. Great stuff.

Best Director: DANNY BOYLE (Slumdog Millionaire)

YES! Great choice! Boyle, having done some amazing work in the past (Trainspotting, 28 Days Later) finally gets the recognition he deserves. His direction in Slumdog was nothing short of outstanding. We truly felt as if we were in the story with them. (It's a shame that Darren Aronofsky, who directed The Wrestler, has been overlooked - his work on that film was just as good, if not better in its subtlety)

Best Actor - Musical/Comedy: COLIN FARRELL (In Bruges)

YES! I was so happy to see In Bruges get some recognition at these awards. That film is so well done, and Farrell's portrayal of a hitman facing emotional angish is top notch.

Best Picture - Musical/Comedy: VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA

This was the other big surprise of the night. Sharing a category with In Bruges (my pick), Burn After Reading (very good), Mamma Mia (haven't seen) and Happy-Go-Lucky (haven't seen), it shocked probably everyone in the room when announced. I'm pretty sure everyone had their money on Mamma Mia or the Coen's effort. However, VCB is a good film, I saw it on a plane back from the USA and it's a whirlwind tale of love, romance, desire and Barcelona.

Best Actor - Drama: MICKEY ROURKE (The Wrestler)

FUCK YES! I was ecstatic at hearing his name read out, his performence is one of the most brutally honest ever captured on film. He and director Darren Aronofsky went through every scene and altered dialogue in Robert Siegel's fine script to truly capture the emotions Mickey too was feeling. After falling from grace in Hollywood, much like his character fell from wrestling prowess, Rourke turned to boxing. It was only through directors taking a chance on him (Robert Rodriguez cast him in Once Upon a Time in Mexico and Sin City) that he was able to make it back on top. Even though I haven't seen Sean Penn's performence in Milk, I am so happy that Mickey beat him. Hopefully this will be the same result at the Oscars.

Best Picture - Drama: SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE

What a way to cap off a great awards night! The little indie film that could is now the frontrunner for the Oscars! Strange that Milk, the other frontrunner, didn't even get nominated in this category by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association.

TV Awards:

Best Supporting Actor (TV Miniseries): TOM WILKINSON (John Adams)
Best Supporting Actress (TV Miniseries): LAURA DERN (Recount)
Best Actor (TV Miniseries): PAUL GIAMATTI (John Adams)
Best Actress (TV Miniseries): LAURA LINNEY (John Adams)

Best Actor (TV) - Drama: GABRIEL BYRNE (In Treatment)
Best Actress (TV) - Drama: ANNA PAQUIN (True Blood)
Best Actor (TV) - Comedy: ALEC BALDWIN (30 Rock)
Best Actress (TV) - Comedy: TINA FEY (30 Rock)

Best TV Series - Musical/Comedy: 30 ROCK
Best TV Series - Drama: MAD MEN

Trailer Watch - Adventureland, 9, Watchmen (Japanese Trailer)

2009-01-07T14:28:00.003+11:00

OK, first Trailer Watch in a long time warrants some really good trailers:

First up, Adventureland, directed by Superbad's Greg Mottola, it revolves around the summer job of a teenage in 1987, working of course in the Adventureland theme park. It looks great, and Bill Hader is in it!

Next, the trailer that has been amazing everyone with its animation and dark story, 9, revolves around a group of rag dolls in a post-apocalyptic parallel universe attempting to survive a dark force.

Finally, in keeping up with the Watchmen advance, the very cool and insightful Japanese trailer for Watchmen:

Review - El Mariachi (& Desperado & Once Upon a Time in Mexico)

2009-01-06T10:09:00.007+11:00

This is the $7000 film. That is essentially what it is remembered for, with Robert Rodriguez' feature debut being made for approximately $7000 (not including the $1 million in post-production given to him when the film was picked up by Colombia Pictures). After reading Rodriguez' book Rebel Without A Crew you are able to truly recognize the genius of this movie. He had no money, acted as a medical drug test guinea pig to raise the money for the film, and had hardly any equipment, going as far as using a shopping trolley or broken wheelchair instead of a dolly. And the final product does not necessarily reflect this. What we see is an epic tale of mistaken identity, love, loss and shootouts in Mexico. And it's freakin' awesome.

Rodriguez wrote the majority of the film in this medical facility, banking on the money he would be getting from this in addition to the prize money he was winning for his short film Bedhead. The plot is simple in its narrative structure and somewhat formulaic in nature, however, when placed in the circumstances of this film, the setting, the characters, it truly makes or a great watch. So the plot revolves around retribution and revenge, with Azul (Reinol Martinez), a criminal wronged by his partner Moco (Peter Marquardt), breaking out of jail to hunt him down. Azul's trademark? Black clothing and a guitar case filled with weapons. Lo and behold, who enters the town at this point? None other than our hero, an actual guitar player out of work, known only as El Mariachi (Carlos Gallardo). mayhem ensues when Moco sends out his squad with the instructions of killing the man dressed in black and carrying a guitar case.

The direction is outstanding for a film with hardly any money. The shots are great, the technique is near flawless (the dream sequences) and the ability to capture the very nature of this small Mexican town is in full force. We see the imense contrast between Moco and his counterpart, and yet a third shade is stuck between them, this being the Mariachi, whom we are able to sympathize with and understand his troubles and his current predicament. Rodruiguez almost always keeps the camera close to the actors, with a level of intimacy that allows us to understand each of these characters in additon to the character development in the script itself. And, of course, the action scenes are pretty kick-ass, especially when you look back on how he filmed the movie.

The acting in this movie is great, with Carlos Gallardo as the Mariachi suiting the role so well, symbolising this sense of innocence in the film, whilst Reinol Martinez is very convincing as Azul, the criminal hellbent on revenge. I think probably the most interesting performence is that of Moco, played by Peter Marquardt. Marquardt had never acted before this film, he was only cast because he and Rodriguez had become friends whilst both of them were in this medical testing facility, and so Marquardt was, in a sense, written into the role. In addition to this, he didn't speak a word of Spanish, the language of the film, and so he had to learn his lines by holding palm cards just out of the cameras line of sight. An interesting fact to note is taht the script was written in English and the dialogue was translated inot the intended Spanish by Carlos Gallardo, the Mariachi himself. Another interesting fact to note is that the film was not recorded with dialogue. At the time of shooting, they would only shoot the video images and would record the dialogue of all of the actors afterwards, with any problems with this dubbing being fixed by Rodriguez in the editing room. The soundtrack to this film is great as well, although it was never formally released and so I can't find it anywhere!

Ultimately, this film is proof that $7000 can go a long way, and it was El Mariachi that led Rodriguez onto later Hollywood success, with films such as Sin City, Planet Terror and even Spy Kids. I urge you to go and find this movie, seek it out, it will show you how explosive an independent film can be. 4 1/2 stars.

DESPERADO:

OK, quick review of this film - in one paragraph! Forget any chance of an intelligent storyline or cleverly woven plotline. This is not what the film is about. Even though we still don't really know why El Mariachi (Antonio Banderas) is out for the drug cartel's head, it doesn't matter. This film has some of the greatest shootouts I have ever seen put to film. It's that simple, Taxi Driver eat your heart out. If you want to see some absolutely awesome action, go no further than Desperado. Apart from a pretty awful twist near the end, this is as solid an action film as any you are bound to find. 3 1/2 stars.

ONCE UPON A TIME IN MEXICO:

Another one paragraph review to round off the trilogy. As much as this movie has been panned by critics, and indeed by some Rodriguez fans, I really enjoyed it. I felt as if the story was, for lack of a better word, meatier, than Desperado. The whole conspiracy plot was straightforward at first, but then grew more and more complicated, which was a worry, but nonetheless the film stayed watchable due to its actors, especially Johnny Depp as the psychotic CIA agent. His turn in the film was hilarious and engaging, especially nearing the end of the film. I am annoyed by the fact that Rodriguez recast Danny Trujo and Cheech Marin, as they had sufficient screentime as other characters in Desperado. Also, some of the action wasn't as good as in Desperado, yet there were still some very cool set sequences. Ultimately, it was a very fun film in some ways, but in others tried to achieve a bit more than it should have. Nonetheless, as I have already said, I really enjoyed it. 3 1/2 stars.

Review - The Wrestler

2008-12-27T14:32:00.007+11:00

A few days ago, I reviewed Slumdog Millionaire, widely considered to be the best film of 2008 (that is, released in the USA in 2008). One of its main opponents is the film I watched tonight in New York, Darren Aronofsky's The Wrestler. Just putting it out there from the get-go, The Wrestler takes the title. To continue this honesty, it was hard finding a flaw at all.
The film revolves around Randy "The Ram" Robinson (real name: Robin Raminski), who 20 years ago was one of America's top pro-wrestlers, having famously won the fight against the Iranian "Ayatollah". Now, he still wrestles, though in a local community hall, for little money. He has to work a day job in a supermarket, he has a problem paying his landlord and he has no one around him: no family or real friends, with the exception of a stripper named Cassidy and in regards to family, the daughter he left, Stephanie. He is offerred a way back into the spotlight, a rematch wit the Ayatolah, however, when something happens to him (I don't want to spoil it), he is forced to readdress his life situation and change his ways.

First off, what makes this film for me is the direction. Darren Aronofsky is a master, a genius, a true director with an independent bent that draws in the audience. Thsi independent bent is why the film succeeds. Like Children of Men, though not to the same extent, it is very much like a documentary of Randy's emotional (and not to mention physical) torture. The quality of film also makes the film seem independent, as it steps away from all of that super HD film-making that many rely upon and makes you want to pick up a camera and tell a story. I have no idea how many people would be in the crew for one shot, the lighting, sound etc., because it just feels so intimate and sincere. Aronosky also has his own little nuances and techniques used in the film. He uses the cut to great effect, dropping away from the action and straight into the next scene. He also uses background music and sounds to heighten the actions of Randy. This is, unfortunately, the first Aronofsky film I have seen, and I have been waiitng for ages to see Pi, Requiem for a Dream (thanks to Tom P.) and The Fountain (thanks to the /filmcast).

Next, the next major feature is the acting. MICKEY ROURKE FOR BEST ACTOR!!!!* He deserves it, with this tortured soul splashed across the silver screen. It is one of those genuine moments when you don't see the actor, but the character. In fact, every actor in every role is superb. They are all real people, all believable and all with their own emotional baggage and backstory. Besides Randy, the two other major characters are Cassidy, the aging stripper, played to perfection by Marisa Tomei - who got a Golden Globe nom. for supporting actress, and Randy's daughter, played by Evan Rachel Wood, who is also perfect for her role.

*I have not seen Milk, starring Sean Penn, so I can't make the comparison yet.

The soundtrack to the film is also very good, divided between score (by Aronofsky regular Clint Mansell) and compilation (ranging from 80s hair metal to porn groove). The score is amazing - check out Clint Mansell's myspace page for a preview. Also, a defning moment of music in this film is in the end credits, a song that will most likely take out the Oscar for Best Song. It is "The Wrestler" by Bruce Springsteen. I urge you to stay in the credits and hear this song, it is absolutely perfect for the film and fits it like a glove.

In regards to the awards season, I believe that The Wrestler will not win many, not to say that it deserves such a result. Rather, it deserves as many as possible, Best Picture included, but it plays out like one of those films that is just too good (and too different and un-Oscar) for the Academy to recognise.

Any guy who can dance in a bar to Ratt's "Round & Round" gets my respect and my undivided attention, even if he really is the tragic depiction of modern humanity and the loss of the American dream. Aronofsky is brilliant, the cast is brilliant, the soundtrack is brilliant, the film is brilliant. 5 stars.

FYI - The Wrestler comes out in Australia January 15.

Also - check out this great interview with Darren Aronofsky at the Onion's A.V. Club

Review - Slumdog Millionaire

2008-12-22T14:56:00.009+11:00

Whilst stranded in Las Vegas due to a storm pushing our flight to New York back, I went and saw Slumdog Millionaire. This is a film that has recieved a huge amount of praise from critics and is widely considered a shoe-in for a Best Picture nomination. So going into the film, I knew about all of the accolades received by Danny Boyle's film and I guess that has impacted upon how I viewed the film because I thought it was incredible, breathtaking and most of all, uplifting.
That's the buzz word with this film, uplifting. The film's plot sets it up for this I guess. Based on the book Q & A by Vikas Swarup, the plot revolves around a teenager from the slums of Mumbai who winds up on Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and makes it to the final question, whereby he is accused of cheating his way through and is detained by police. From this point on, we see how each question he was asked is reflected in his life and his search for his true love, a girl he meets after a horrible scene in the slums as a boy. Now although this might appear a bit cheesy, the whole concept of fate is covered very well, with the audience truly believing in the occurrences rather than being skeptical.

The direction by Danny Boyle is incredible in scope, ranging from the rushed and carefree moments of childhood in the slums to the very structured TV show to the normality of the police station, well, at least some sense of normality. What this film does is only prove Boyle's standing as one of the great modern directors, having crossed genres and countries, from Trainspotting to 28 Days Later and now to this.

With such direction, a great sense of atmosphere is drawn out, truly capturing modern India. There is this amazing sequence during a chase between the slumdogs and the police where the camera just flies back higher and higher until the true enormity of the slums is seen. I went on Student Exchange to India for 2 months last year and was shocked by the disparity between poor and rich and the film really shows the lows faced in India. The rich is not touched upon in great detail, however, the film does a good enough job to show the contrast by forcing the audience to compare themselves to the characters. With this atmosphere, you actually feel as if you are in their world for the 2hrs of the movie, a very incredible experience.

The acting is great as well, led by Dev Patel as the older Jamal. Patel, who was a central character in the great Channel 4 TV series Skins has finally achieved the attention he deserves, even being nominated for Best Supporting Actor at the SAG Awards. The other actors, including Anil Kapoor as the host, Irrfan Khan as the Police Inspector and Freida Pinto as his love, Latika, were all excellent in their respective roles. My personal favourite was the youngest Jamal, who was hilarious, that being Ayush Mahesh Khedekar.

The soundtrack to the film is also a great highlight, with the infusion of traditional Indian music with M.I.A. Yes, Paper Planes is in the film. Twice! The script is another highlight, filled with surprises and bringing back nuances in the beginning. My only real qualms with the film is that is seems a bit repetitive at times, although this may be intentional due to the structure of the show.

The film, being tipped for a Best Picture nomination, follows in the footsteps of fellow 'indie' films, such as Juno and Little Miss Sunshine, both form Fox Searchlight. Hopefully this won't just be the little film that could, but the little film that did, and take out the big prize, it would be well deserved.

Ultimately, the film's success can be seen in its ending alone. It is emotional, engaging and fulfills the term 'uplifting' that has been assigned to the film as a whole. There's even a tear shed here and there. Go out and see this, you won't regret it, neither did my audience, who gave the film a round of applause at the end. 4 1/2 stars.

Review - Sin City

2008-12-08T21:27:00.006+11:00

Perhaps too often, the word visionary is thrown around in reference to directors. Those who have made some arthouse film that seems a bit off-beat or anyone that attempts to experiment with animation is given the title (Zack Snyder of 300 fame). There are only two directors I would regard as being visionary, that being visionary in style (rather than narrative), those being Guillermo del Toro (Pan's Labyrinth) and now Robert Rodruiguez. After growing up with the Spy Kids films and finally experiencing Planet Terror earlier this year, it was time to really see his genius when I was shown Sin City, his greatest film to date.

Sin City is a film that smacks you in the face like a sledgehammer, allowing cartoon blood to flow from your gaping mouth as you stare in amazement. This is a film that grabs you by the balls (see the film and you'll understand the reference) and never lets go. The plot, structured in a similar style to Pulp Fiction, that being of 3 major stories that interlink (albeit not as well flowing or coherent). The stories are as follows; the tough guy trying to avenge the death of a hooker, a waitress' boyfriend going after her murderous ex and finally a seasoned cop who vows to protect a young girl from a serial child rapist. Not your average movie, I'll admit, but it is one that engages you for the full 2hrs it runs for.

The most obvious feature of the film is the aesthetics, which are stylized to suit the comic book series of which the film is adapted. Quite appropriately, Frank Miller, the creator of the Sin City series, was attached as co-director. The usage of colour in the film contrasts the dark and confronting black and white, used to establish the style of noir, or in this case, neo-noir. However, one flaw of the film is the usage of colour in some scenes, when the blood is red and then for others, white. This style of neo-noir is one of the most appealing factors of the film, the way that the audience accepts the dark atmosphere and setting, the way that the characters seem indestructable.

The acting was pretty good, in each of the stories there was a solid cast, Bruce Willis was great as the retiring cop trying to save a little girl (Jessica Alba, who was alright). In another story, Clive Owen was awesome as the boyfriend, he even held an American accent! In that same story, Rosario Dawson was at her best too, as the leader of the 'ladies of the night' and Benicio del Toro was as entertaining as ever as Rafferty, the shady ex-boyfriend. In the first story, Mickey Rourke caught our attention as Marv, the revenge seeking thug. And don't forget our more silent characters, Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood, who without a word is absolutely sickening.

As with every soundtrack done by Rodriguez, it was a perfect fit for the film, although I don't think it was as evident in Sin City as in Planet Terror. The cinematography was good, with an array of locations and shots. I still couldn't pick which of the film Tarantino guest directed (it was the scene between del Toro and Owen in the car), which, in a sense, showed the consistency of the film.

The length was no problem, as it felt much longer than it actually was. After stopping the film about midway through, I was still a bit iffy about how it would turn out, but after some time being immersed in the seedy world of Sin City, you can't help but be captivated.

Ultimately, go and watch this film. I avoided it for way too long, avoided my brother's cries of its greatness. Sit down, strap yourself in and be consumed by the darkness that is Sin City. 4 1/2 stars.

Review - Burn After Reading

2008-12-08T17:28:00.003+11:00

Like Fargo, the Coen Brothers once more prove themselves the masters of confusing comedic thrillers. Burn After Reading, the film they made after No Country for Old Men, is one of the strangest films that make sense I've ever seen. What I keep wondering though is how anyone could come up with that story.

Unlike yesterday's showing of Quantum of Solace, Burn After Reading's plot was evident, albeit a little hard to follow. It surrounded the discovery of a CD containing the memoirs of a deranged former CIA agent and everyone connected with it. As a result, we were treated to an array of colourful characters. As is stock standard with the Coens, each of these characters was believable and engaging, even those minor characters had some motivation evident to the audience.

The direction was great, there was a really clear and fresh feel to the cinematography and the style was perfect for such a modern story. Reflecting this general feature was the CIA office shown in the opening, its subtlety in simpleness was startling.

The acting was superb, with every character really consuming the role that they were in. Frances McDormand as Linda and Brad Pitt as Chad, the gym workers who discover the CD of files were spot-on, defining the ignorance they represent. Tilda Swinton was actually engaging in her character (I didn't get the hype over her Michael Clayton role) and John Malkovich was awesome, as usual, in his role as Osbourne Cox. George Clooney, however, takes the cake as Harry, the man stuck in the middle of every circumstance, his paranoia sublime in the film.

Subtle nuances were also one of the reasons the film was so engaging, especially in the characterisation of each individual, as well as in the contrasting CIA view. Each of the characters were shown to have a clear motive and intent, with the audience feeling compassion for almost al of them. In the CIA scenes, even in such a high establishment, each individual has their own perspective and subtle reactions.

Ultimately, this film was a fun but confusing ride. The plot was a bit difficult to comprehend without concentration but it was worthwhile in the end. The Coen Brothers once more deliver a film that draws us in and makes us engaged. 3 1/2 stars.

Review - Quantum of Solace

2008-12-07T16:42:00.006+11:00

In Casino Royale, the re-boot of the James Bond series, we were introduced to a complex plot, multi-dimensional characters, great action, acting, direction and even soundtrack. In its footsteps is Quantum of Solace, a film that lives up to none of what Casino Royale promised us.
First off, I just need to point out the major fault with this movie - the plot. There is actually nothing there that holds the film together, just a string of action sequences that are meant to divert our attention away from the gaping holes and lack of development in the plot. When Judi Dench says "We know nothing about them", I can't help but put myself in her position, knowing absolutely nothing about what I am watching. Die Another Day had a clearer plot! DIE ANOTHER DAY! We still don't know what the f**k Quantum is even at the end of the film.

The film opens with a car chase! NO classy intro that Casino Royale gifted us, no lead-up. Just a pleasant scenery shot and then straight into an extremely fast cut action sequence. Maybe if this sequence was any good, I might redeem them for this, but alas no, it was awful - the cuts were too quick, the actual action was unclear and muddled, lost in the array of flying debris. And maybe they learnt from this mistake and got better with every chase and action sequence...mildly. There was a chase in cars, on foot (the best one), bike, boat and even plane! A frickin' plane chase! I was expecting them to crank out Kenny Loggins' 'Danger Zone'. Ryan, who I went with, said that the only thing we needed was "a pogo stick chase". The action was not done well enough for a Bond film.

Another major problem was the overuse of scenery shots. It's like they realised they had no plot and then decided to have Bond host The Great Outdoors. The number of countries that they travelled to was enormous and some of them pointless and lacking development. Maybe they all wanted holidays and needed some excuse to go - a movie. Also, why was Marc Forster directing? The guy who did Stranger Than Fiction and Finding Neverland directed a Bond film?!? Not a good decision.

There was also a lack of intimacy that plagued the film. Where Casino Royale would allow the characters to develop and change, Quantum of Solace gave them 3 lines and a death sequence. Even the older Bond films showed us something. The one and only sex scene in the film (yes, they restrained themselves), was so instantaneous and pointless that it probably sent women's rights back decades.

The acting was alright but again, no character was allowed to develop. Bond has no emotional change worth noting, except for the very obvious in the conclusion. Olga Kurylenko, the female 'sidekick' as it appears, had no emotional bearing upon us until about 15min from the end. The villain was also poor. Mathieu Amalric, a distinguished French actor, never came into his own as the villain, and we never did see his own personal struggle, as we did of Le Chiffre in Casino Royale.

The soundtrack wasn't even notable. Where Chris Cornell's rousing theme You Know My Name, flowed throughout the Casino Royale in the score, Jack White and Alicia Keys' Another Way To Die hardly ever registered on the classical side of the film.

There is however, some saving grace in this film. The last 20min were actually pretty interesting and grabbed us, although it did make me realise that the very last scene could have happened at the start of the movie and then we wouldn't have to worry about the rest. Some of the action, I concede, was pretty cool. Some of the cheesy one-liners got a laugh. And Bond kicks ass. Lots of it. Maybe we were supposed to walk out scratching out heads as to what went on, some sick sense of suspense and confusion.

However, this good does not outweigh the bad and so we have another lackluster Bond film to add to the list. Ultimately, as I left the movies there was a sense of disappointment, the recognition of what could have been. 2.5 stars

Review - American Teen

2008-11-29T22:14:00.003+11:00

I have finally gotten around to seeing American Teen! After seeing the first trailer and not being allowed to see it at the Sydney Film Festival in March, I was really eager to see this doco. The very nature of it is appealing, a close look at the lives of 4 teenagers in their last year of high school, set in the small town of Warsaw, Indiana. OK, maybe not that appealing at first glance, but give this one a shot. Some may hate the film, some may come out of the theater depressed, others with a sense of understanding and hope, some may love it. I, contrary to many of the group I saw it with, fall into the latter category.

American Teen, as I have already said, is about 4 (5 if you include the
heartthrob guy) teenagers from Warsaw in their last year of high school and from this simple premise comes a cacophony of social issues. As the trailer of the film itself states "Who were you?", in relation to the various branding of teenagers in modern life, the Geek, the Rebel, the Jock and the Princess. Such a simple question is not that simple to answer as you watch the film. None of these people are two-dimensional, they all have personal flaws and characteristics that set them apart, that, in a voyeuristic sense, make them more watchable.

Some of the people I saw the film with thought the film was "stupid" and "so random", and after I stated my opinion I was emphatically told "Of course you would like it, you're a film nerd" (which I don't necessarily object to). Either these guys didn't feel comfortable watching such a voyeuristic film or weren't compelled at all with the storylines of each of the characters. In terms of the film being voyeuristic, it really depends on small personal moments to make the film work, it is these little scenes that build upon the social image of each of these teens, as well as their own personal reflection. However, at times the film making seems like it went a little too smoothly, in that some aspects of the film seem, staged is not the right word, but you catch my drift. In regards to the storylines of each of the characters, I loved it. I kept wanting to see more of each character, with every moment we were drawn into who they are and how they act, Jake's (the Geek) impulsiveness in asking girls out being contrasted with him not being able to cope in social situations, a la the semi-formal. None of the characters, I believe, were not engaging, from the Jock to the Princess, each of these characters had real issues to deal with that have shaped who they are. My personal favourite was Hannah, the Rebel, who was really honest in everything she did and left you with a lot of hope for the future. (BTW - her short film she made after this is here)

In addition to these major characters, the use of supporting characters (I keep saying characters but they're real people!) helps us to understand more about the social groups that form in an American high school. This film has been labelled as The Breakfast Club for our generation, and although I haven't seen the John Hughes classic, I think that there is a clear enough distinction between the two, with the themes being the major similarity. For some reason, I'm a sucker for teen drama, having loved Sex Drive (not really a drama) and Donnie Darko, and having a serious need to watch a lot of 80s films (it's a compulsion - don't ask me why). BTW, if that genre interests you, and you liked teen movies from the 80s, check out the Matthew Frost directed music videos of M83, such as Graveyard Girl.

At some points, the film divulged into animation, which was able to visualize the emotions, hopes and dreams of each of the characters, with varying success in each instance. Also, the use of narration and interviews built upon the scenes, although hindsight is very useful, as is an editing suite. The direction was alright, although it was a documentary. I think that the quality of the camera/footage was a bit poorer than I expected, although this does not detract form the story at all.

Ultimately, this was a very enjoyable documentary. It allowed us to delve deeper into the psyche of a teenager and see up close the workings of social groups, with this making comparisons between ourselves and people we know to the characters in the film. I thought it was a great experience, one I had been waiting to see for a long time, and it didn't disappoint. 4 stars.

Review - Trainspotting

2008-11-22T23:23:00.005+11:00

For some strange reason, I felt compelled to watch Danny Boyle's Trainspotting tonight. And it was good that I did. After not knowing a lot about the film, I dived head first into what is one of the most edgy and unique films to come out of Britain in the 1990s. And it is clear to see how it achieved its cult status, it had its finger on the pulse of the society in which it was made, it captured the essence of its context.

Trainspotting is about drugs. Plain and simple. Yet what it does is look at the effects of these drugs on the lives of a group of so-called friends in Scotland. We mainly follow Renton (Ewan McGregor), and his lapses in and out of heroin addiction, experimentation and "choosing life", his attempts to quit heroin for good. Along with Renton are his buddies, the James Bond obsessed Sick Boy, Spud, heartbroken Tommy and the psychotic Begbie. They even introduce a love interest for Renton, Diane (Kelly Macdonald), although her role is, I believe, less developed than it should be.

The best thing about Trainspotting was the direction. Danny Boyle's style was captivating, with many memorable instances of visual flair, such as the "worst toilet in Scotland" scene and the "carpet sequence" (if you haven't seen the film, what I have just said will make no sense at all). Boyle uses a wide variety of locations and landscapes, moving from insular drug dens to the mountains of Scotland, this contrast rudely interrupted by Renton's reasoning as to why Scotland is shit. Even Boyle's subtle shots work to highlight the gruesome and depressing state of affairs, even when the action/s are only hinted at. There is, however, a level of explicitness in what is shown, in terms of drug usage and death, which should shock everyone who sees it.

The writing is also good, although much more prominent and stronger in the first half of the film. That was when I was truly captivated and felt involved in each of the character's stories. I feel though, that the subplot involving a drug deal that took up most of the time in the last 1/2hr took away form the successes of the time preceding it. The dialogue was snappy, but as I have already mentioned, some character development was lacking, especially Diane. However, writer John Hodge's usage of humour in the film acts to break up the bleak and depressing spirals of drug addiction that unfold before our eyes.

The acting was great all-around, Ewan McGregor held strong as the troubled Renton (no wonder he's so successful now), Johnny Lee Miller (Sick Boy), Ewen Bremmer (Spud), Kevin McKidd (Tommy) and Robert Carlyle as Begbie all play great off of Renton. Kelly Macdonald is great in her debut, yet she should have had more scenes to develop.

The soundtrack was another prominent feature in the film, with the heavy influence of Brit-Pop permeating through. The continual referral to singers who are on the soundtrack was amusing, with debates over Iggy Pop and Lou Reed refreshing against the bleaker wake-up call the film presents.

All in all, Trainspotting is not a film that celebrates drugs or drug usage. What it shows is effect and the cyclical nature of addiction, which is extremely powerful to see on screen. This degradation is summed up by the loss of innocent life (you'll see), and the truly debilitating fall from grace that each character goes through. 4 stars.

Soundtracks - Jackie Brown

2008-11-21T21:34:00.006+11:00

Sitting aimlessly, I wondered what to write about for the blog. Suddenly, I had the strange feeling to watch Jackie Brown, Quentin Tarantino's underrated and often unknown third film. I resisted the urge, but couldn't avoid listening to the soundtrack, when I cam up with the idea of writing about certain movie soundtracks.
For me, there are two masters in the world of soundtracks, the lesser and more punchy Guy Ritchie, and the master himself, Quentin Tarantino. I was listening to the /filmcast, the podcast of slashfilm.com, and they were talking about this. They mentioned the fact that both of these filmmakers have the ability to make any song in the soundtrack iconic, in that whenever you hear it, you immediately think of the film in which it was featured.

So now, whenever I hear Across 110th Street by Bobby Womack, I immediately think of Pam Grier going along an airport escalator, regardless of the fact that I'm supposed to be focusing on Harlem's streets in American gangster. So how I'm gonna look at these soundtracks is to look at each track individually and then give a final verdict and a rating.

Create a playlist at MixPod.com

1. Across 110th Street - Bobby Womack
This is iconic, Pam Grier going along an airport escalator (I forget what they're called, travel-something?) whilst the credits roll in front of her. This seeming bland image is invigorated by Womack's upbeat tune. As Tarantino himself notes, it is the opening credits song that defines the movie's soundtrack, look at Miserlou in Pulp Fiction and Little Green Bag in Reservoir Dogs for proof of that. The song brings us into an era of music, takes us into the Blaxploitation genre, even though the film is set in the present. It is with this first step that Tarantino bends genres in his delivery of another cinematic success.

2. Beaumont's Lament - Dialogue

3. Strawberry Letter #23 - Brothers Johnson
Once you hear the soft and sweet chime melody underneath the funky bass in the Brothers Johnson song you are hooked. This is a song not easily taken out of your head. It will fester for days, trust me.

4. Melanie, Simone and Sheronda - Dialogue

5. Who Is He (And What Is He To You?) - Bill Withers
Remember Ain't No Sunshine? That was this guy. Bill Withers, most notable for his melancholy tune, has another trick up his sleeve - awesome funky backtrack. That is what makes Who Is He such a great song, it's melody, tone and tune. A similarly catchy song, it is very listenable and continues the flow of blaxploitation-esque tunes.

6. Tennesee Stud - Johnny Cash
That's one way to break the soulful melodies, chuck in some Johnny Cash. What this song does, however, is show us another perspective, something that the film relies upon. By looking at a different genre of music, Tarantino hints to his more eclectic side.

7. Natural High - Bloodstone
The opening to this song sounds like a slightly cooler intro to a song from Godspell, but as it progresses, it takes the soundtrack back to the soulful line it was following until the Man in Black's interuption. This is a song you could fall asleep to, it is so calm and peaceful and evokes another side from Jackie Brown.

8. Long Time Woman - Pam Grier
That's a strategy. Get a song from the lead actress's 1971 film and reuse it. What this does is show the parallels between Jackie Brown and the blaxploitation flicks of yesteryear, as well as showing us that Pam Grier can sorta hold a tune as well.

9. Detroit 9000 - Council Cargle (Dialogue)
Even though this is dialogue, I still wanna write about it. This is the single most random thing on the soundtrack, even beating out Johnny Cash. It is a line from the film Detroit 9000, delivered by an actor named Council Cargle who only starred in 3 movies in the 70s. But it sounds really cool.

10. (Holy Matrimony) Letter To The Firm - Foxy Brown
This song brings modern hip-hop and rap to the film, contrasting the mainly 70s tunes. It has a good dramatic effect but if it wasn't on the soundtrack, i wouldn't listen to it.

11. Street Life - Randy Crawford
This is another of those funky songs that, like Across 11oth Street, just stick with you. It's very easy to get into and catchy to boot. A very welcome addition.

12. Didn't I Blow Your Mind This Time - The Delfonics
MY FAVOURITE TARANTINO SONG EVER. This is pure bliss. Like Reservoir Dogs, it is referenced in the film directly, with Jackie putting on the record and then Max Walker starting to listen to it to try and understand Jackie. The song is just amazing, so simplistic and beautiful.

13. Midnight Confessions - The Grass Roots
This song is a big change from the last song, it is upbeat and uses the guitar and keyboard to back it up. It even has a guitar riff and keyboard solo. It's a pretty cool tune nonetheless, with another catchy chorus to add to Jackie Brown's collection.

14. Inside My Love - Minnie Ripert
I never really got into this song, as with the Johnny cash number. Whilst other songs captivated me, this one left me sort of empty. Although it is a very well paced song and is slow-moving, I was never a big fan.

15. Just Ask Melanie - Dialogue

16. The Lions and the Cucumber - The Vampire Sound Inc.
Sound weird? It is. A strange instrumental, sounding as if Booker T and the MG's went completely experimental and dark. I even think there's a sitar in there somewhere...

17. Monte Carlo Nights - Elliot Easton's Tiki Gods
This is a cool instrumental, one that is very stylised in that it lives up to its title. It does, however, feel reminiscent of Pulp Fiction, a film Jackie Brown was far removed from.

The reason I selected Jackie Brown over Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs or even Death Proof is that it probably has my favourite Tarantino songs in it, at least more than the other films. The soundtrack fits the film like a glove and is so sensual in its delivery and timing in the film that it makes for one of the best compilation soundtracks I have ever heard.

Trailer Watch - The Wrestler, Star Trek, Slumdog Millionaire, Che, Watchmen

2008-11-21T17:00:00.003+11:00

OK, I have been really lazy with my posts recently. I have watched 4 movies that I should have reviewed (Mulholland Drive -4, Taxi Driver - 3.5, Sex Drive - 4, No Country for Old Men - 4) but I just haven't been bothered. So instead, here is another batch of recent trailers, but this tiome, we have 5:

First up, Darren Aronofsky's new film The Wrestler, that is being heralded as Mickey Rourke's comeback and a real contender for Best Picture, Actor and Director at the Oscars (maybe even Screenplay):

Next, the long-awaited Star Trek revival. I'm not a trekkie, but the fact that J.J. Abrams is directing is enough to draw me in - and it looks pretty awesome too:

Third is another contender for Best Picture although it looks like this will be the token indie film (a la Little Miss Sunshine and Juno). It's about love, culture and destiny - don't be thrown back by the seeimgly cheesy storyline, it has received immense praise:

Number 4 is Steven Soderbergh's two film epic, Che, about revolutionary Argentinian Che Guevara:

Finally, and this is worth the wait...WATCHMEN HAS A FULL TRAILER - AND IT'S EPIC:

Hopefully I'll watch a movie tonight, maybe I'll review it - we'll see...

Your Top 10

2008-11-07T20:12:00.004+11:00

I think that the title speaks for itself a fair bit.... What are your top 10 movies of all time?

A requirement though -

Must have seen the film

thats it....

Enjoy

Trailer Watch - Fanboys, The Brothers Bloom, Monsters vs. Aliens

2008-11-07T15:25:00.005+11:00

I've done three reviews in a row and I think it's about time for some variation on the blog. So here are some more trailers for your viewing pleasure:

First up, the Star Wars centric Fanboys:

Next, a trailer that has been hanging around for a while, that of The Brother Bloom, the next film from Brick director Rian Johnson:

Finally, the new Dreamworks animated film, Monsters vs. Aliens, which has a stellar cast:

Review - Chinatown

2008-11-06T23:42:00.003+11:00

For the second night in a row, I watch a Jack Nicholson film from the 70s. For the second night in a row, I stay up way too late to be woken up at 6am. For the second night in a row, I have watched cinematic masterpieces. Chinatown, I would argue, is the greatest detective movie ever and the greatest film noir ever. Not even The Maltese Falcon can hold up against Roman Polanski's 1974 classic.

Chinatown revolves around the initial case of fraud, whereby Private Investigator JJ Gittes (Jack Nicholson) is asked by a Mrs Mulwray (Diane Ladd), to find out if her husband is cheating on her. When Gittes gets the evidence he needs, it hits the newspapers immediately, and later on, a woman arrives claiming to be the real Mrs Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) and threatens to sue Gittes for what he has done. Things start to get out of hand when Mr. Mulwray, the Water and Power head, turns up drowned in the local reservoir, amidst a water dispute that is tearing LA apart,the real Mrs Mulwray appeals to Gittes for help, whilst her overbearing and powerful father Noah Cross (John Huston) also joins in the action.

As you can see in the plot summary above, Chinatown has its intricacies in terms of plotting, and this takes nothing away form the film at all. It is a brilliant storyline, written by Robert Towne, that has been heralded by many as the greatest American screenplay of the post war years. After the first viewing, I could not comprehend all of the finer details of the plot involving the distribution of water, yet I was still captivated by the mystique and mystery that surrounded every minute of the film.

The direction was perfect, with Polanski using a variety of locations, evoking a variety of tones as a result, with the harsh sun bearing down upon LA in one scene, and then the all-consuming darkness of night. Polianski also used set camera pieces which would capture all of the action in a scene with very smooth and calculated movements. The scenes moved along in a similarly smooth fashion, drawing the audience in as the story and the mystery began to unfold, even until the bleak and depressing conclusion. Also, the entire film was shot following Gittes. There was not a moment where a stray scene would show two different characters talking or interacting without the inclusion of Gittes somewhere. It is this stylistic choice the pulls us into the mystery, making us a part of the discovery and the reveal.

The acting in the film was, once more, great. Although not as great an ensemble as Cuckoo's Nest, individual performances stood out. Jack Nicholson as Gittes once more, delivers great characterisation, this time as the troubled P.I. determined to find out who set him up, as a matter of personal honour over anything else. John Huston, the cinematic legend, commands every scenes that he is in, acting as the sinister Noah Cross. Perry Lopez as Lt. Escobar was good but a tad stereotypical and cliched in his role. There was one more performance that stood out to me, above all others. That performance was of the femme fatale, a necessary character in any crime film, fulfilled in this case by the character of Evelyn Mulwray. Faye Dunaway was captivating and mesmerising in the role of Mulwray, she became the character, if you will. Her performance lifted any scene in which she appeared and her emotional range was used to great success.

I noticed that the score of the film followed classic detective scores, drawing on the decade in which the film is set, the 1930s. As such, the music flowed perfectly into the film and lifted the scenes even further into our subconscious, really making us feel part of this mystery.

Overall, Chinatown is a classic not to be missed. It encapsulates the detective genre, with its mix of sly humour, intrigue and dark overtones. I may be absolutely smashed tomorrow but at least I know that forgiving sleep for two amazing, classic movies, was not a waste at all. 5 stars.

Review - One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest

2008-11-05T23:37:00.004+11:00

Every so often, a film comes along that leaves you breathless at the end. When Cuckoo's Nest ended, I was in that state, not quite sure what I had just watched or it's effect upon me. What I do know for certain is this: that was amazing.

No wonder the film is perched (pun intended) at the #8 spot on the IMDb's Top 250, all of the elements of the film compliment it perfectly. Firstly, the plot. Adapted from Ken Kesey's book of the same name, it's about a rebellious, fun-loving prisoner named McMurphy who is sent for "evaluation" at a mental institute. Since he's avoiding jail-time, he makes the most of it, causing chaos and getting on the wrong end of cold and emotionally barren Nurse Ratchet. He attempts to rally the other patients together and break Ratchet once and for all. As always, mayhem ensues.

Before I analyse the elements, I just want to take a look at the concept of a mental hospital as the setting for a film. When anyone ever described the film to me I was immediately switched off, I mean, what can you really do with a mental hospital to extend it for a 2hr runtime? Well, I was proved wrong by the film, with it's zany activities and strange characters holding the storyline up. Whenever there was a scene actually in their area, I kept thinking back to Twelve Monkeys, Terry Gilliam's time-travel film which also featured a mental hospital. And I think that if Twelve Monkeys is a good representation of what it's like in a mental hospital, then Cuckoo's Nest is a brilliant one. We see the despair, loneliness, confusion and it is mesmerising.

OK, first up, the greatest element of this film was the acting. This is probably the greatest ensemble acting I have ever seen. Jack Nicholson at the helm as R.P. McMurphy was excellent, very much consumed in his character and I think, very much deserved of the Oscar he got for it. Another acting Oscar that got handed out was to our villain, Nurse Ratchet, played by Louise Fletcher, who was absolutely sublime in capturing the very cold and isolating nature of the character. My favourite though, was the rest of the mental patients. It was extraordinary how each of these actors could take a twitch, a stutter, a saying and just become the character. Even from such a simple gesture we are let into the deranged minds of these poor men. Sydney Lassick as Cheswick was probably my favourite loony, followed closely by Danny deVito's Martini (WTF? I had no idea that it was him until the credits). Christopher Lloyd was good in his debut (!), William Redfield was endearing as the Chief, and the Oscar nominated Brad Dourif as Billy was also great.

Next, the writing. The dialogue in the film flowed pretty well, with certain scenes just perfectly written to engage and capture the emotions of the audience. The structure of the film was good, with very clear turning points in the story. The only qualm I have with the storyline itself is the random nature of a lot of it e.g. the boat, the girls, but overall this only adds to characterisation of McMurphy.

The direction of this film was great as well, with the opening shot lingering until the credits had finished, then just continuing on as if nothing had even happened. Some moments in the film used this technique again, by holding the shot for a long period of time, which I loved. The use of long shots, and a few sweeping shots also helped build the mood, which is a credit to Forman, transitioning from the enclosed environment of the hospital to the ocean with ease.

Overall this was a great film to finally watch, I had been waiting a while to see it, after watching the Spaced episode that parodies it and not getting the jokes. Anyway, the film was emotionally moving and extremely well acted. This is what the movies should be all about, forget the blockbusters, just get a good story, great acting and you're off to a great start. Maybe it'll even get you 8 Oscars. 4 1/2 stars.

Review - RockNRolla

2008-11-02T19:05:00.006+11:00

Guy Ritchie has defied the odds. After the critical disasters Swept Away and Revolver, he is now reliving those glory days of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. Yes, as evidently shown through my last sentence, RockNRolla was a very good film. As Scorsese owns the American gangster movie, Guy Ritchie owns London gangsters. RockNRolla takes him back to his roots of multiple characters, hitmen, immortal Russians and great one-liners.

The plot for the film was laid out in the first 20min, although my only qualms with the first Act was that Ritchie tried to fit too much backstory into too little time, and so we were forced to try and keep up with his rabid fast direction. The plot itself revolved around multiple character arcs; Archie (Mark Strong), our narrator and right-hand man to Lenny Cole (Tom Wilkinson) as we follow their deal with the Russian mobster Uri (Karel Roden), the "Wild Bunch", a group of crooks headed by One-Two (Gerard Butler) who steal some of the Russians money to pay Lenny, and the Russian's accountant Stella (Thandie Newton), who also has a bit of fun with One-Two. As you can see, everything links. But alas, I forget the greatest of them all, the Rock'n'Rolla himself, Johnny Quid (Toby Kebbell), a drugged out Rock Star who has a close connection with Lenny. Throw all of this in the melting pot. Mayhem ensues.

Many complaints about the film revolve around the plot, some say it is too convoluted, others say it is moronic. Firstly, they are idiots, and secondly, it's a Guy Ritchie film, the plot is one big MacGuffin for awesome dialogue and style. Following on from that thought, the writing was great, with many interesting characters and great dialogue. The reveal nearing the end was a very clever invention and seems a lot more logical once you know the reasons behind it. The very last scene though, was interesting, as it set the film up perfectly for a sequel, and it makes no attempt to hide that fact, with the planned RockNRolla trilogy.

The structure of the film was interesting, with all fo the different characters adding that little bit more to the story. And where the first 20min may have left me floundering, the last 20 were brilliant. I just didn't want it to end and thank God for those planned sequels. The major payoffs were scattered througout the film, the most memorable being; the chase scene on foot, the sex scene (you won't forget it) and the elevator scene (that was brilliant!).

The acting was great, with Mark Strong as Archie being a great centrepiece/narrator for the film, Tom Wilkinson is great as always as London crime-boss Lenny, Gerard Butler plays a great humorous role for a change, Thandie Newton has gained a great amount of respect from me for this role, which she fitted into like a glove, the Russians had their moments, the Americans, Jeremy Piven and Chris Bridges aka Ludacris, were also funny. But nothing could beat Johnny Quid. T0by Kebbell was absolutley perfect for this role and he played it to perfection. One of the greatest Guy Ritchie characters I've seen.

The style of the film was also great, the opening credits playing out like the antithesis of the Bond films' openings and those three great scenes I've listed already each employing a distinctive technique to grab the audience's attention. With the style comes the soundtrack. Wow. Ritchie, being up there with Tarantino in terms of best soundtracks doesn't miss a beat with this one. The opening titles, with Black Strobes I'm a Man blaring through the speakers of the cinema was just suited the tone of the film so well.

Overall, this is not a film you should just miss, not just because of the planned trilogy, but also because it's Guy Ritchie on form once more. 4 stars.

Not too Payneful... (Review - Max Payne)

2008-10-30T18:59:00.004+11:00

After much excitement I finally found myself sitting in a cinema, eagerly awaiting the beginning of Max Payne. Although I never played the video-game on which this film is based, having read up on the premise and repeated viewings of the well crafted trailer had more than piqued my interest. In the end, whilst I wasn’t disappointed, I wasn’t overly impressed either.

To start with the bad bits first – storyline. Max Payne tries to tell a tale of revenge, mixed with elements of thriller and action, but doesn’t do it particularly well. I found myself scratching my head at certain events, but more importantly just didn’t find it to be gripping. That’s a real problem. I’m sure many would disagree with me, but it just wasn’t great.

Acting was another low-point for this film. Max Payne himself is the only character who has any development potential, but it doesn’t occur. Mark Wahlberg does the best he can with what he’s got, but the fact is that Max Payne is a two-dimensional Cop with little depth. As for his female sidekick – who’s so well crafted I can’t even recall her name (Mona Sax played by Mila Kunis) – her presence was completely unnecessary and irrelevant that I did not understand her presence in the film. And a cameo by Ludacris??? What was going on? Needless to say peripheral characters are uninspiring, though they do their job.

But it wasn’t all bad by any means. Lighting is a particular high-point for me, giving Max Payne a really Neo-Noir look to it. It serves to build atmosphere and add the film that real edge Noir type lighting contrasts can give. The locations further add to make this an enticing, gritty film, though I think Tourism New York mustn’t be too happy – everywhere looks dark, gloomy and dangerous. But if you’re a Neo-Noir fan – see this film.

The purely action sequences jam-packed with gunfights, hand-to-hand combat and all out fighting were also done exceptionally well. I particularly enjoyed Max’s dive backwards whilst firing a shotgun – slow motion – though my cynical friend was not as amused.

I’d end by saying that Max Payne is an edgy, Neo-Noir, revenge film set in some of the seediest areas of New York. Whilst aspects are done extremely well, this film is hamstrung by a poor storyline and acting. I did enjoy it, though for a film billed as ‘This year’s Sin City!’, I was expecting far more than what I got.

Trailer Watch - Watchmen, Zack and Miri Make A Porno

2008-10-26T10:13:00.001+11:00

OK, here are the new trailers for Watchmen and Zack and Miri:

Firstly, Watchmen. This is footage released at the 2008 Scream Awards and it is essentially just an extended version of the first trailer. Watch for the last shot of the trailer: it's awesome.

Next up is the new greenband trailer for Zack and Miri:

Short Film - Lifted

2008-10-10T19:49:00.001+11:00

It's about time we had some short films up here, so I've decided to post one of Pixar's - Lifted.

It's the story of alien abduction, finally from the alien's perspective.

Written and directed by Gary Rydstrom.

Review - Psycho

2008-10-09T00:49:00.007+11:00

This was my second venture into the films of Alfred Hitchcock after seeing Rear Window some time ago (which is a brilliant film) and I was not let down at all. Although this film is widely regarded as his most famous, primarily due to the notorious shower scene, it is not as good as Rear Window yet still holds up even now.

The story surrounds Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), who steals $40,000 off her boss and heads interstate to surprise her boyfriend, Sam (John Gavin). Only problem is, on the way she needs to make a stop overnight and it so happens to be at the Bates Motel, run by Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins). After she meets a grisly end, an investigation ensues, leading to a major reveal and a climax not unlike Rear Window 6 years earlier.

The film does not conform to normal story structure, especially for a film in 1960, with the protagonist that is established in the beginning of the film being killed off by the end of the first act. We change our focus on each character and this is another layer that is added to the film. The writing is good, the story arc seems very simple once considered overall and some of the dialogue is very well done. Even the long explanation at the end by the Psychiatrist was not too tiring, it was nice to see how the story unravelled once more.

Hitchcock's directing style is interesting and engaging. He opens with sweeping shots of Phoenix, continuing with wide shots of scenery, but it is when he gets into subtle and smaller, more intimate shots, that the tension mounts. I'd seen many a parody of the shower scene, where Marion Crane meets her maker, and so when the scene came, I was waiting for that moment when all hell would break loose. But there is no huge in-your-face entrance, only a shadow behind a shower screen, resting softly in the background until the climatic and chaotic attack. This was also his last film in Black and White, having used it as a stylistic choice ot tone down any "gore".

The acting in the film is superb stuff. Janet Leigh as Marion is refreshing and unique in her role, differentiating from female stereotypes of the era in providing us with a character we can relate to. Vera Miles and John Gavin, as Marion's sister and boyfriend respectively, both hold their own on screen, with Gavin shaky at the start but coming into his own nearing the end of the film. Martin Balsam as the Private Detective Arbogast was one of my favourites - smooth talking, slick and intelligent, an example of great casting in the film. But one performence blew me away -Anthony Perkins as the deeply troubled Norman Bates. This was a performence for the ages. It was so subtle in its delivery and yet held a layer of darkness beneath it. I know this isn't the best comparison but Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men also exemplified this concept of subtlety in the villain. There was one line that gave me chills down my spine, it wasn't even a really notable line but Perkins' delivery was really off-putting: Hate the smell of dampness, don't you? It's such a, I don't know, creepy smell.

All in all, Psycho is a film that you should go out and watch, ignore that it is B&W, ignore that it is from 1960 - just relish in Hitchcock's masterstrokes. 4 stars.

Desert Island Top 5 - Sequels

2008-10-06T20:01:00.004+11:00

Wow. I've done shit-all for a while now. I did, however, read Nick Hornby's High Fidelity, which is a brilliant book about a thirty-something record shop owner and his relationships with women and music. One of the key components of the book was the concept of the "desert island discs", basically a list of your top 5 whatever, it ranged from most memorable split-ups, to favourite Cheers episode and best side one track ones of all time. So I figure, since I really haven't got much to write about, I may as well do one of these lists.

So I choose sequels, I'm not really sure why. There's a lot of crap to wade through but some of these are gold.

In no particular order (and off the top of my head):

Die Hard: With A Vengeance
Terminator 2
The Empire Strikes Back
The Dark Knight
The Bourne Ultimatum

I'm sure there are a lot I forgot, and some I just haven't seen yet (Godfather II, etc.) but it'll do. Until I can be bothered to write something else of course.

Trailer Watch - Zack and Miri Make A Porno, Role Models, How To Lose Friends and Alienate People

2008-09-22T20:56:00.004+10:00

OK, some funny trailers this time around.

Note: Redband is R-rated trailer in America.

First up, the new Kevin Smith film, Zack and Miri Make a Porno. This redband trailer looks hilarious:

Next, the new Paul Rudd comedy also starring Elizabeth Banks, Role Models:

Finally, the new Simon Pegg film How To Lose Friends and Alienate People:

Review - In Bruges

2008-09-20T20:07:00.003+10:00

That was a very good film. It's that sensation you get when something that you thought would be good goes that little bit further, is more intelligent, more artistic, that little bit more put into it to make you think about the film for a long time after viewing. That's what In Bruges was.
The film revolves around two Irish hitmen, Ray, a young and cynical Colin Farrell, and Ken (Brendan Gleeson), a more experienced, yet somewhat sympathetic character, who have both been told to hide out in Bruges, Belgium, after a murder goes wrong involving the death of an innocent child. Ray hates Bruges from the get-go, the historic buildings and Jesus' blood don't appeal to him, only finding solace in a eurotrash film set, complete with dwarfs, including Jimmy (Jordan Prentice) and the alluring drug dealer he meets there, Chloe (Clemence Poesy). When awaiting a call from their boss, Harry (Ralph Fiennes), they decide to go out, missing the call. Hilarity, violence and intellectual thought ensues.

Martin McDonagh is a playwright by trade, renowned for his work (none of which I've seen or really heard of), especially the play The Pillowman but his transition to the screen as a writer is engaging and rewarding. Where many aspects of the film would play out as in a play, involving long conversations and dinner tables, McDonagh utilises the medium of film to draw us in further, depicting the extremities (well the setting) of Bruges and the simplicity of objects as he never could on a stage. McDonagh not only wrote the screenplay but actually took up the role of director. And as aforementioned, his transition from play to film was effective through these shots and angles.

The writing itself was great, the dialogue was laced with cynicism and humour, with strange conversations about the suicide rate of midgets and the ethics of attacking a woman wielding a bottle very amusing. The characterisation was also very well done. Both hitmen had a real sense of humanity about them, not in a very general sense, but in the idea that we could connect and sympathise with them and their scenarios. The introduction of Harry, the boss, only occurs at the start of the third act and so there is limited time for development, yet McDonagh provides a great character study of a man held to his honour and principles. And how about the language? If ever there was a greater usage of fuck, it was when Harry went ballistic - you're an inanimate fucking object!

The acting was great, Colin Farrell fit the part of Ray perfectly, conveying a brash and cynical outlook on life but still showing us the guilt he feels towards his shooting of a child. Brendan Gleeson does very well as Ken, as we follow his moral decision after receiving a job from Harry, Ralph Fiennes is a very pleasant surprise, Clemence Poesy, in her limited scenes, was relatively good and Jordan Prentice is always funny. Just a thought, how many Harry Potter connections could you pick? Clemence Poesy is Fleur Delacour, Ralph Fiennes in Voldemort, Brendan Gleeson is Mad Eye Moody.

Another positive is the story and the themes that develop. The great thing about McDonagh's screenplay is how it draws out ethics and morality, intertwining religion and the concept of death to provide a deeper subtext to a well constructed narrative. One of my favourite moments was the last 10 minutes, where everything came back, the references, the early scenes and the circumstances, laced with irony.

Ultimately, this was a film that was not made for the shopping centres it was screened in, it was not created for a suburban teenage audience, it was a film that was aiming for a certain type of audience, we were the youngest in the cinema by probably 20-30yrs. The audience for this film needed to pay attention, be involved in the storylines that each character follows, picking up on subtlety delivered and relish in the true excellence of the writer, making Bruges that little bit more interesting. Let's hope you are in that sort of audience. 4 stars.

Trailer Watch - Titular Characters (Benjamin Button, Milk, W.)

2008-09-06T19:34:00.004+10:00

New Trailer watch, I know it's been a while but I've had stuff on, so anyway:

First up, The Curious case of Benjamin Button, starring Brad Pitt as the titular character who ages backwards, directed by David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac).

Next, Milk, starring Sean Penn as another titular character, who seeks to become the first openly gay man elected to office in America, don't avoid it just because of that description, it looks like it will be great.

Finally, the highly anticipated Oliver Stone biopic W., about George W. Bush. It stars Josh Brolin as the man himself, and Elizabeth Banks as Laura Bush.

Review - Tropic Thunder

2008-09-03T15:48:00.005+10:00

I don't read the script. The script reads me.

The original redband trailer for Tropic Thunder was one of the funniest things I've seen all year, so I went into the film with some mixed expectations - the hope that it would live up to the trailer, yet the doubts of many criticisms I've read. Luckily, it was an awesome ride.

The story surrounded the concept of a movie within a movie, that a bunch of actors are involved with the Vietnam war film "Tropic Thunder" when the Vietcong actually show up and start a mini-war with the actors. Some of them are oblivious to this fact (Stiller), whilst others see through it at the start (Downey Jr.) - mayhem ensues.

OK, so this idea of a movie within a movie, we've seen it before in Moulin Rouge! (with a play), it looks really good if it's done right. Tropic Thunder did it right. The references to the script and the story of Tropic Thunder were really well integrated, off-the-side lines ended up coming back into the film as scenes and the ending, how good was that? I loved the whole mirroring effect (if you've seen it, you'll know), I just thought that was funny and clever at the same time - big thumbs up to the writers. And the referencing to the studios was great, the whole relationship between studio and director was funny, these moments were really well written but a lot of these jokes really hit home with people who are really into films. I mean, I had finished Peter Biskind's Down And Dirty Pictures, a few weeks earlier and so the whole studio thing really came across as hilarious.

The acting was great, Stiller was his usual self, Jack Black was OK but nothing special, Jay Baruchel was good as the 'straight man', as was Brandon T. Jackson as the real African-American, Robert Downey Jr. was awesome, even having a reasonably good Australian accent but ultimately, the cameos took the cake. Matthew McConaughey was very funny as Stiller's agent, Bill Hader was good as an assistant, Danny McBride was great as always, Nick Nolte was pretty funny, Steve Coogan was alright but ultimately, the winner is Tom Cruise as a Harvey Weinstein-esque executive. Tom Cruise has redeemed himself. After all of the crap he's churned out, both in the press and on film - Tropic Thunder is his redemption. That was one of the funniest performances I have seen in recent memory.

Stiller's direction was great as well, incorporating really great action sequences into the scenes, in many cases with us laughing all the way through it, something that didn't work as well with Pineapple Express. The fake trailers/commercial (I thought BootySweat was a real thing when I saw it) were really funny and just sort of led us straight into the film, basically it flowed really well.

The whole controversy over the portrayal of retarded characters I think was really overblown. Although it could've been clearer in the film, the whole concept of the humour was that it satirized actors who played mentally impaired characters in order to win Oscars.

Ultimately, a really funny film that impressed me more than I thought it would - it's about time we had a really good comedy. 4 stars.

Review - Brick

2008-08-31T00:21:00.008+10:00

I know I haven't posted anything recently - I've had exams this week and have one to go on Monday. However, I took the time out of my "study" to sit down and watch the 2005 independent film Brick. To watch the trailer click here.

It's not very often that a film-maker on debut makes what some would consider a masterpiece. At the moment, Tarantino and Richard Kelly come to mind, yet there is one more to add to this list - Rian Johnson. Brick is his directing/screenwriting debut, accepted in the Sundance Film Festival and winning the Originality of Vision Prize there in 2005. Let this be of warning to you, this is not a film to skim over, or even to casually watch - this is real film-making with real characters and a real plot - you must pay close attention.
The story revolves around Brendan Frye, a loner who is still recovering from a break-up with girlfriend Emily. When, out of the blue, she calls him asking for help, he tries to get to the bottom of her situation, pulling him into the world of "shady dealers", murder and money.The film is set in a modern context, although not today, as in the film, cell phones are only just appearing. Yet this modern context is not what feeling is exuded from the film. What Johnson is able to do is channel film noir detective movies from the 1950s and earlier, giving the audience this sensation of a mystery, just a mystery apprpraited through many decades, where a senior student is our detective and the Vice-Principal is the police.

The writing in this film is superb, dialogue is sharp and sounds like it was lifted straight out of a noir classic. The characterisation, although limited for some characters in terms of backstory, is accentuted through this notion of their "plan" or their motive, as Brendan puts it, having someone "under your thumb". The variety of smaller characters, whilst still having a set amount of major roles, worked marvelously on film, allowing you to really grasp who these people were and what they were doing. The direction was well done, very stylish and flowed well with the whole concept of the film, especially the quick close ups that gave us that little bit extra to solving the mystery ourselves.

The acting was well done all round, especially Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Brendan, who really encapsulated this ideology of a loner, an outsider looking in at everyone else. Nora Zehetner was my next favourite, she played her part as the insider very well, she was as mysterious as Brendan made her out to be. Matt O'Leary as The Brain, Lukas Haas as The Pin and Noah Fleiss as Tug all held up their end strong. The only let-down was Australian Emilie de Ravin (Lost), whose feigned American accent grew tiring on my ears.

The score for the film, by Nathan Johnson, was magical. The use of abstract instruments, like wine glasses to achieve a high pitched ringing suited the film perfectly. The repetition of "Emily's Theme" was so profound and amazing that everytime you heard those notes you sat up and paid attention.

My only qualms were that sometimes, especially on my first viewing (I've seen it twice now), the storyline sort of muddled near the end, trying to fit the resolution into a small timeframe. But this does not detract from what a creative masterpiece the film was. If only more film-makers can go out and take such an interesting and original concept, we may avoid the perils of Hollywood's manufactured sequels. For an amazing cinematic experience, see Brick. 4 1/2 stars.

Trailer Watch - Referenced on Fox Searchlight?

2008-08-23T14:24:00.006+10:00

I was scrolling through Fox Searchlight's website for the upcoming film Choke and found this in the press release section:

Yes, that is my article from August 2 on some trailers I found on the web. In fact, it's not really even an article - rather a compilation.

To see that I'm not bullshitting you: Fox Searchlight - Choke Press Breaks

In celebration of this discovery, I have posted some of the trailers of the best films from Fox Searchlight in recent memory:

First up, one of my all-time favourite films, Thank You For Smoking, a sharp satire focsuing on lobbyists:

Next, one of the best films of last year, Juno. When I was in India for 2 months last year, I watched a huge amount of movie trailers online to keep my sanity. This one was on high repeat.

Finally, the Irish music film Once. It's an absolutely beautiful film, filled with joyous songs. The trailer doesn't really capture the essence or charm of the film, but I really recommend seeing this film - it will blow you away.

Note: I would've put the Little Miss Sunshine trailer up as well, but I've already reviewed it.

Trailer Watch (Old Films) - Brick, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Stranger Than Fiction, A Scanner Darkly

2008-08-20T20:33:00.005+10:00

Ok, not old in the sense that they're from the 60s, but these are trailers for films that you should go out and check on dvd.

First up is the trailer for Brick, Rian Johnson's debut film that is basically a classic noir detective movie set in a modern high school. It's very good.

Next, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, a great film from Shane Black, screenwriter of the first Lethal Weapon film. This too is a detective story, just very funny. starring Robert Downey Jr. in my favourite role of his and Val Kilmer does great as well as "gay perry".

Next, Stranger Than Fiction, the film where Will Ferrell shows that he's not just a one trick pony. It's a great story, great cast, you get the point.

Finally, Richard Linklater's adaptation of Phillip K. Dick's A Scanner darkly. It was filmed using a technique called rotoscoping, allowing the animated effect. It's a very stylistic film and once more, Downey jr. kicks ass.

Review - Pineapple Express

2008-08-18T18:56:00.008+10:00

OK, go and watch Superbad again. Pineapple Express follows the same buddy formula, except its nowhere near as funny. The film was very hit-and-miss for me, with some great jokes for a few minutes and then 15minutes of nothingness. Apatow may have hit a brick wall with this one.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate the film, I liked it a little, but it just didn't meet my expectations. The redband trailer that's on the blog makes the film look hilarious, and yet, how is it that from the guys who brought us The 40 Year Old Virgin and Forgetting Sarah Marshall, the best bits are in the trailer?

The storyline revolves around Dale, a process server who gets his pot from Saul, a local dealer. When Dale witnesses a cop murder a member of a rival drug gang he flees the scene, but not before throwing his joint out the window and having them trace it back to Saul. Dale and Saul leg it and mayhem ensues.

The acting is OK, James Franco was pretty funny as the ever-stoned Saul but Seth Rogen played the same character he plays in every film (except Superbad) and it gets annoying after a while just watching Seth Rogen. Danny McBride is a legend! That guy was hilarious as Red, the middle man in the deals. Look out for him in The Foot Fist Way and Tropic Thunder.

The characterisation was pretty shallow. The 'bromance' between Saul and Dale was well done, it was very well written in that regard, but outside of those two characters, there was nothing. The crooked cop, the drug dealers, all didn't have any proper back story or even connect with the plot in an engaging way.

The action itself, albeit cool in some scenes, just got boring. I found myself leaning on my arm watching the final fight scene, there was no suspense at all, save Danny McBride's masterful entrance.

The direction just didn't feel right, I can't say I've seen David Gordon Green's other films, but he just didn't seem like the right fit for a stoner comedy. The whole 80s concept of the film wasn't carried through either, with only the soundtrack (Huey Lewis theme song? awesome!) and the old school transitions managing to recreate the atmosphere, whilst the plot itself didn't.

Overall, I can't say it wasn't worth watching, but it was funny at points and something a little different. If you can see through all of the flaws then you might just love it, otherwise, you're with me. 2 1/2 stars.

Note: I recommend getting the triple j film podcast and the /filmcast, both of which have reviewed the film. The links to these podcasts can be found on the left sidebar.

Review - The Boondock Saints

2008-08-17T14:52:00.007+10:00

If I wanted to see cool dialogue, biblical references, recurring flashbacks and shoot-outs, I would have watched a Tarantino film. Instead, I watched a film that tried to grasp some of the aura of a Tarantino movie, they had loads of guns, blood and mob bosses, but it was never anywhere near as good or as entertaining.

The Boondock Saints follows two Irish brothers in South Boston who, after being attacked by Russian mobsters, feel it is their duty to kill every bad person in the city, justifying their crimes with prayers to God. Does this seem pretentious already?

Where Tarantino would have these killers question morals, as Jules does in Pulp Fiction, these brother continue to murder, with everyone seeing them as being in the right, even the police. The film's only real message is that revenge is awesome. What could have been said in 5 minutes was instead flamboyantly exaggerated for 104.

The acting was alright, they each played their part well to a certain extent. Billy Connolly? What the f**k? Talk about a chime effort. It seems like they cast him only because they couldn't differentiate Irish and Scottish accents. It's no stab at Connolly himself, he was pretty good, but the characterisation was awful. The saving grace of this film was Wilem Dafoe. What a legend. He was absolutely extraordinary in this film, he made every scene he was in engaging and exciting for the viewer, a much needed boost for the film.

The direction was annoying and the "flashbacks" over-repetitive. It's like a crappy Usual Suspects or Reservoir Dogs. The dialogue was OK, some scenes were well written and funny but others just became really contrived. The plot twist involving Il Duce (Connolly) was so pathetic, it seemed like Duffy just needed some way to have his main characters survive. And the cat? As soon as I saw that I realised what a pathetic rip-of this movie can be - its a direct transfer of Marvin's death in Pulp Fiction.

The whole Irish Catholic theme of the film wasn't carried out well at all. For starters, the Lord's Prayer that is repeated throughout the film, specifically at the beginning, is actually the Protestant version, rather than the Catholic version. I felt that Scorsese's The Departed did a much better job of showing the audience Boston as a city, as well as the culture behind it.

So what was good about the film? It was, in a sense, a mindless shooter film, except that it wanted to be so much more. It's watchable, but not believable or able to be respected as a cult film. Besides Dafoe, the best thing about the film was that massive "fire-fight!!!" between our main characters and Il Duce where Dafoe walks through the middle, orchestrating an unseen symphony. That was cool. The rest of the film, although unabashedly violent, not so much. 2 stars.

For further evidence, see:

Review - The Wrong Man / Lucky Number Slevin

2008-08-12T19:06:00.004+10:00

This review surrounds Paul McGuigan's 2006 film Lucky Number Slevin, or as it is known over here in Australia, The Wrong Man. First up, why the name change? The US title sounds a lot better and our version really summarizes the premise rather than the film. So, how was the film itself? Good. Interesting. Unique. Most of all, it was underrated. This was a film that came from nowhere, no one went to see it at the movies, it's really just the semi-'cult' status that it's recieved on DVD.

The premise of this film is that Slevin (Josh Hartnett), after a run of bad luck at home, goes to visit a friend, Nick Fisher, in NYC. When he gets there, he meets the lovable Lindsay (Lucy Liu) before being picked up by not one but two different mobsters within the city, The Boss (Morgan Freeman) and The Rabbi (Ben Kingsley), who both think he is Nick. Mayhem ensues.

That's a basic, but accurate summary of the first 30min of Lucky Number Slevin. Now this isn't an original premise, as the film itself references Hitchcock's North by Northwest, but it is the way that the film is shot and the stylistic nature that sets it apart. If I had to compare it to any film, it would be The Usual Suspects, because of its 'storytelling' nature. We as the audience are led through the film on Hartnett's back, it feels like more than just a thriller.

The style that I reference is the really modern tones and settings used throughout the film, especially in the apartment block, which contrasts the classic style of both the Boss and the Rabbi's headquarters. The direction by McGuigan is cool, with nice cuts and some cool sweeping shots - nothing amazing, but it suits the film.

The acting is of a high standard in the film, Hartnett is great as the smartass Slevin, Lucy Liu is at her best as Lindsay, both Morgan Freeman and Ben Kingsley fill their roles well, although I don't really think Freeman is suited to be a gangster, whilst Kingsley is a very convincing Rabbi. Stanley Tucci is good as the cop, albeit a relatively small role. Bruce Willis, as the assassin Mr. GoodKat is a little on the wooden side, but it suits his character.

The soundtrack/score by J. Ralph is great, it fits the film like a glove. And what about the credits song "Kansas City Shuffle"? Very cool I must say. The writing for the film was pretty good, dialogue was very funny and engaging, but sometimes the plot was a bit lethargic in moving forward and left out a lot of info the audience desired. I guess my only real qualms with the film concern some minor plot holes and character motivation. It's a fun ride. 3 1/2 stars.

Trailer Watch - Teenage Wasteland Special - Sex Drive, American Teen, The Wackness

2008-08-09T18:20:00.003+10:00

These are a few trailers that I have had for a while (except Sex Drive), and haven't yet got an Australian release date any time soon. So I guess we should savour these trailers until the movies eventually come out. Also, after posting, I realised they all involve teenagers - hence the new post title 'teenage wasteland'.

First up, Sex Drive, a teen comedy that actually looks funny - sort of about relationships online (a la Myspace/facebook):

Next up, American Teen. I have been waiting for this film for so long! It was released at the Sydney Film Festival (along with The Wackness), but they imposed 18+ age restrictions on every film because they hadn't been classified yet. This is a documentary that attempts to find what drives teenagers:

And finally for this week, The Wackness, a 90s nostalgia film that tries to capture the feel of the time through the life of Luke Shaprio. Also, it has a great cast, Ben Kingsley, Olivia Thirlby (Juno) and Josh Peck.

Review - Little Miss Sunshine

2008-08-06T17:00:00.003+10:00

If ever a film encapsulated the word "bittersweet", it was 2006's Little Miss Sunshine. A film so warm and embracing, yet at the same time presenting us with a depressing state of affairs.

This is hands down one of the best written screenplays that I have ever come across. It takes the simple concept of family and draws it out, breaking down and building up character relationships whilst still driving towards the "climactic" finish - the Little Miss Sunshine beauty pageant. (the screenplay can be found here)

The story centers around the Hoover family, comprised of Richard, the life-plan lecturer, Sheryl, the stressed mother, Dwyane, the troubled teenager, Olive, the exuberant young girl, Grandpa, senile and dangerous and Frank, Sheryl's brother and recovering from a suicide attempt. All of these characters, whilst on first glance fulfilling the stereotype that "family movies" have cemented in our minds, each have incredible depth to them. Taking the example of Dwayne, he's taken a vow of silence until he gets into flight school after reading Nietzsche. How Michael Arndt thought that up is beyond me. And what about Frank? The gay Proust scholar trying to cope with the cacophony of trouble that he has faced. Back to the story, it centers around the Hoover family on their cross country journey to Olive's beauty pageant in California, on a VW Bus. Some very funny scenes concerning this form of transport.

The film was shot very well. I really liked the stylistic approach taken by directors Jonathon Dayton and Valerie Faris, in that the shots were not fast, there didn't need to be quick cuts because the lingering on certain images was moving and emotionally accessible for the audience.
The soundtrack, by DeVotchKa & Mychael Danna was so well suited to the feel of the film. The music felt as if it was a representation of the new found freedom each of the characters has. The tempo and timing were sublime. A great musical score that will stay in your head for ages.

The actors were very good as well, Alan Arkin received a Supporting Actor Oscar, although I don't think he was the best of the cast. I'm throwing my weight behind Greg Kinnear as the irony-laden "loser" (or winner?) father, trying to hold the family together whilst his career crumbles around him, and the amazing Steve Carrell as Frank. For a comedian to pull off such a dark role was great, I'd love to see him do another similar role. Abigail Breslin was an asset to the film, a child star who we don't hate on first sight is a rare occurrence nowadays. Toni Collette is very good as the mother as well. And Paul Dano? Well, his mannerisms were great, even if his dialogue was non-existant up until the end.

As for being bittersweet, there was a great deal of darkness underneath the joyous mystique we are left with. That's nothing against the film, but rather for it, as we empathize with characters we relate to, allowing us to really feel as if we are part of the Hoover family. Everyone pretend to be normal. 4 stars.

Review - Cloverfield

2008-08-02T21:37:00.003+10:00

No, I haven't just seen Cloverfield for the first time. But, when rewatching it, I think I was able to truly recognise its genius. The strangely named J.J. Abrams project is a true feat of modern cinema. What makes this film so interesting to watch is its approach to storytelling. Director Matt Reeves doesn't just create a typical monster-movie, or for that matter a typical disaster-movie, but rather focuses on the individual, looking at this catastrophe through the lens of a handheld camera.

The story is centered around Rob, a young promising businessman, having been promoted to VP of his company and now off to Japan for work. On the night of his farewell party, "Cloverfield", a monster from the depths of the ocean, attacks NYC, wreaking havoc amongst the skyscrapers. Rob teams up with his brother Jason, his brother's girlfriend Lily, Lily's friend Marlena and of course, our cameraman, Hud, in attempting to escape Manhattan, whilst Rob has his heart set on saving the girl he loves, Beth, who lives in Midtown NYC. This premise is developed through the relationships of these people, with romance, loss and fear all bringing these people closer together.

The marketing campaign for the film, way back at the beginning of this year, was pure genius. The first teaser trailer was so interesting that the film made a huge profit on the back of that alone. And the Statue of Liberty? What an iconic image that came to be.

The film itself had its ups and downs. The opening was a tad slow, although it did show the relationships of everyone really clearly. When the monster first attacked, the pace picked up and held us in its grasp, as we feared for our heroes. The subway scene was excellent, as were some of the shots on the streets, truly showing the enormity of the situation. After that though, it slowed a bit and never quite reached the heights of the first act/PP1. The ending was predictable, but it was what had to be done.

When I saw the film at the cinema, a few of the guys I was with complained about the handheld footage and how it was really annoying because of the shakiness. I don't share that view. I loved the authenticity that arose and the fact that the film-makers took all of this into account. Having seen it at the cinema and on dvd, the cinema atmosphere was a lot better for the film, in building fear and suspense in the audience, as well as heightening some of the reveals.

The acting was great in this film, all actors were relatively unknown, but really filled the roles they were given, especially Lizzy Caplan as Marlena, and T.J. Miller as the lovable Hud. The writing was pretty good as well, the structure of the story was unconventional, yet still created this imperative for characters and truly encapsulated this 'journey' they were going through.

All I can say is, really go and see this film if you haven't already. It is an experience you won't forget easily. A nice take on a stereotyped genre. 3 1/2 stars.

Trailer Watch - In Bruges, Choke, Pineapple Express (Redband), Burn After Reading

2008-08-02T17:36:00.006+10:00

OK, I didn't get around to seeing any new movies this week, so I'll just post some more trailers. Some of these I have discovered this week, others I have had for ages - hope you enjoy:

First up, Irish comedy-thriller that has gotten some great reviews in the States, In Bruges:

Next up, the trailer for Choke, the most recent movie adaptation of a Chuck Palahniuk novel (didn't catch? - He's the guy who wrote Fight Club):

Note: There is a redband (aka uncut) trailer for the film now online but be warned, it's pretty explicit.

Next up, the new Judd Apatow vehicle from the guys who wrote Superbad, Pineapple Express.

Finally for this week, the new comedy from the Coen Brothers (No Country for Old Men, Big Lebowski), and starring Brad Pitt and George Clooney, Burn After Reading:

Trailer Watch - Hamlet 2 (Redband), Rock 'N' Rolla, Yes Man (Teaser), The Foot Fist Way (Redband)

2008-07-27T14:29:00.005+10:00

OK, Trailer Watch number 2. This time, I'm gonna add new release trailers and also some that have been circulated for a while.

First up, a trailer I've been showing everybody I can, Hamlet 2.

Secondly, the latest film from Guy Ritchie (Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch), Rock 'N' Rolla.

Then, Jim Carrey's latest offering, which, much to my surprise, actually looks OK.

The list concludes with independent comedy, the Foot Fist Way, a cult-ish hit in the States.

Review - The Dark Knight

2008-07-22T14:05:00.005+10:00

The wait is over, and the superhero epic we have all been waiting for has finally graced our theater screens. The hype was huge, even overshadowing the film itself. It held it's own though.

The Dark Knight picks up after Batman Begins, how long we don't know. Gotham has a new District Attorney, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) who is on the warpath to stop mobs in the city, and after Batman provides him with a certain suspect, he is able to put all gang members to trial under a clause relating to conspiracy. This makes him everyone's target, with every criminal seeking to kill Dent.

If you're wondering why I have focused this brief synopsis on Harvey Dent, it's because he is the main character, as Christopher Nolan himself said. The story is all about the decay of the White Knight, as Harvey is known, transforming from a hero for justice into an anarchic criminal, Two-Face. This "downfall" is covered very well in the film, the writing is superb in creating a morality tale.

Then, we move on to who everyone has been waiting to see, The Joker (Heath Ledger). What a brilliant performance! Ledger is the Joker, the character consumes him and we truly believe in this sinister incarnation. The great part to his character is that he provides the comic relief even through his terrifying acts. The "magic trick" he pulls in front of the gang bosses is hilarious.

Christian Bale does his job as Batman/Bruce Wayne, though nothing extraordinary. His Batman voice does irritate me though. Michael Caine is, well, Michael Caine. Morgan Freeman is, well, Morgan Freeman. Gary Oldman as Lt. Gordon is very good, a great boost in the film. Maggie Gyllenhaal is OK, better than Katie Holmes was though.

Enough with the acting, now to the story. In essence, it became a morality play, though that's nothing to hold against it. The film started on the wrong note, I was very disappointed with the opening. The return of the Scarecrow (Cillian Murphy) was too short and inconsequential. The concept of copycat Batmans could've been developed further as well. As the film progressed, I became more and more interested in the story, forgetting that this was a 2 1/2 hour film. Nearing the end, when Batman had to make a "choice" (you'll know it when you see it), the film kicked into overdrive - it was perfect from there. And that's not an easy thing to say.

The ending of film film was amazing. It was absolutely perfect for the film and it really showed us Batman's true character. It's really a testament to the writing of the film, Christopher & Jonathon Nolan and David S. Goyer should really get a bigger wrap for the film because it's their writing that weaves the intricate web of the film, creating the dark and brooding atmosphere not seen in any Batman film to date. Jack Nicholson's Joker and Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face should be stricken from the record - The Dark Knight defines these characters and the entire Batman franchise. This is the greatest superhero movie ever. 4 1/2 stars

Tom Whalen's LOAD Magazine cover design:
Links:

Trailer Watch - Watchmen, Terminator 4 & Tropic Thunder

2008-07-21T23:48:00.003+10:00

New feature for the blog: Trailer Watch, showing you the best trailers that have been released recently (courtesy of Trailer Addict)

OK, first up, superhero-epic, The Watchmen:

Then, the teaser for the highly-anticipated Terminator Salvation, starring Christian Bale as John Connor:

The trailer for Tropic Thunder, the Ben Stiller creation that parodies Apocalypse Now can be seen below in Redband form:

That's about it this time around, but keep checking Apple for new trailers.

Review - The Departed

2008-07-20T16:26:00.004+10:00

It won the Best Picture Oscar. Deservingly. That's something you don't see everyday.

The Departed, released in 2006, is a crime masterstroke at the hands of the genre's (is it really?) king Martin Scorsese. Written by William Monahan (who also won an Oscar, hint hint), the story centers around the dealings of a Boston gang, led by Frank Costello (Jack Nicholson - can I say perfect casting?), and the cops trying to get him. That was a horribly simplistic run down of the plot. I'll try again: Two guys, one's a cop really working for the mob, one's a mobster really working for the cops. They race to reveal the other's identity before it's too late. That was a little better.

The film is amazing. Well directed, well shot, great script, amazing cast (!) and a killer ending to boot. But let's start at the beginning, how great were the opening credits! Wait a sec, what opening credits? I didn't notice them missing until the blast of Dropkick Murphy's 'I'm Shipping Up to Boston' cascaded across the soundtrack -- 15 minutes in!

The cast was amazing - Nicholson, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Alec Baldwin, Martin Sheen, Ray Winstone and Mark Wahlberg (in the role of his career). To get that sort of star power and have them all perform is almost impossible nowadays. Casting the main female lead to an unknown was a great move as well, Vera Farmiga is excellent. And the accents! Boston accents done well is a great sight (or rather sound).

Stylistically the film was well structured, well shot, descriptive and informative, engaging etc. You don't just see this film because of the style. You do it for the original story. Oh wait, it's a remake! A good remake! The Departed is an Americanized version of the Hong Kong crime thriller Infernal Affairs, but, according to most, a lot better.

Jack Nicholson's opening monologue really set the mood of the piece, brutal Irish loyalty and the gang culture that emerged from it. William Monahan's script was sharp as a knife from then on. Scorsese made it brilliant. Ah, why can't there be more gems like this. 4 1/2 stars

Review - Hancock

2008-07-05T17:51:00.003+10:00

The trailer for this film was great. I mean, it pulled me in, I was waiting to see this film for ages. Will Smith, Jason Bateman, Charlize Theron, it looked like an awesome film in the making. It was a funny trailer, leading me to expect a funny film.

If you haven't quite guessed yet, the reason I am talking about the trailer is because it was better than the movie itself. That's putting it bluntly.Hancock is a film that doesn't quite know what it wants to be - whether this is a comedy, drama, action, thriller. That gets really annoying after a while. You have a film with a cool premise, a chance to create a non-comic-book hero that could possibly satirize the whole concept of a super-hero. But no, we are treated to a film that has weird mythology, sadness, loneliness and a second plot point that was so stupid!!!

This film was disappointing. It had funny moments, but all of them were in the trailer. The acting was average, except for Jason Bateman, who was great. Charlize Theron was not the right casting and Will Smith just stuck to a stereotype instead of becoming the character. The direction was nothing special, as were the special effects. I will admit that the ending was sweet but the development that led to it was just plain awful.

We saw half of the movie in the trailer, we knew the storyline. Did it develop from that skeleton? NO. We saw the trailer and then some filler material for 60min. The twist as the 2nd plot point was stupid and attempted to be clever by baffling the audience. A word of advice to the writer: it wasn't clever - don't ever do that again.

So, all in all, it wasn't the most awful movie ever made, as it might seem after reading the above. The criticism is mainly out of disappointment, that this movie could have been, should have been so much more. 2 stars.

UPDATE: I was just on twitter when I saw this gem from Dave Chen of the /filmcast:

" I still can't get over the mindf*ck that was hancock. And I don't mean in a good way. I mean like "a penis was inserted into my brain" way"

Film Club - The Weather Man

2008-07-05T17:35:00.002+10:00

It was my turn to show the guys a film dear to my heart so, lo and behold, The Weather Man. The film stars Nicholas Cage, Michael Caine and Hope Davis, directed by Gore Verbinski (Pirates of The Carribean) and written by Steve Conrad, who went on to write The Pursuit of Happyness and the upcoming The Promotion.

I love this movie. Plain and simple. I know that a lot of people hate it or find it mundane but I think it's an amazing character study, focusing on the Chicago weatherman Dave Spritz and his inability to gain any respect whatsoever from his kids and his dad, who incidentally is a Pulitzer Prize winning author. The plot is just that, he attempts to get his life back on track after hearing of his father's lymphoma.

It is sad, depressing even, but there are moments, glimmers of hope that shine through and allow you to connect with Dave rather than sympathize with him. There are even funny moments, and when there are, trust me, you'll remember them (tartar sauce).

The acting is good, not necessarily great. Cage fits his role perfectly, as does Hope Davis. Michael Caine's American accent is disconcerting though. The cinematography is some of the best I've seen, capturing Chicago's urban life and contrasting it with the natural environment, caked in snow during winter. The best thing about this movie though, is the writing. It's a brilliant script, with deep emotional speeches and realistic language and scenarios, as well as the aforementioned character development.

I know that both Zac and Vale liked it, which makes it 2 from 2 for the Film Club.

I gave it 4 stars.

Comparison - Panda vs. Smart

2008-07-01T18:58:00.005+10:00

OK, I'm bored. But I have seen two new movies in two days, so - let's compare. Both reviews are below - and one is higher than the other, can this comparison change this?

Main Character - Although KFP has the cool panda, the character development of Max in get Smart is so much more than that of Po - and Carrell is a much better actor.

Supporting Cast - Get Smart. KFP was shocking - they each had, like, two lines (Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen), whereas Get Smart had Anne Hathaway and Alan Arkin, both on form.

Plot - KFP was a very cliched story about the loser overcoming all obstacles to be a hero. GS was also a cliched story following the same lines. Tie.

Best Action Scene - Nothing can beat the chopsticks.

Best Line - I really want to give it to KFP just for 'Scadoosh' but GS had a few crackers, see below:

'That is a suckerpunch to the gonads'
'How about Chuck Norris with a BB Gun?'
'He left us. What a douche'

Best Direction - KFP because of the ability to capture anything with CGI/Animation. Get Smart was good, but the fight sequences in KFP give it the edge.

Best Soundtrack/Score - Kung Fu Panda has Cee-Lo Green's cover of 'Kung Fu Fighting' but Get Smart had '4 minutes' by Madonna, as well as ABBA and of course, the infectious theme song ('Da da da......DA')

SCORE: GS 4 - KFP 2 (1 Tie)

Review - Get Smart

2008-07-01T17:53:00.004+10:00

I don't know what movie Paul Byrnes was watching, but it wasn't Get Smart. He gave the film an absolutely terrible review - and it's bullshit.

This film was a pleasant surprise. Plain and simple. I didn't expect high-brow comedy, I didn't expect a comedy masterpiece, so I was happy with what I saw today. It must be noted though that, like Hitman, I wasn't a big fan of the original material (in this case the TV show), so my opinion is based solely on what I saw on the screen.

The plot was pretty basic, an analyst working a desk job for CONTROL, a thought-to-be defunct government agency, known as Agent 38, or to us, Maxwell Smart (Steve Carrell), gets his chance to be a field agent after CONTROL headquarters gets destroyed by the villainous CHAOS organisation. He teams up with the beautiful Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway) and embarks on a mission to save the world from nuclear war. OK, maybe not so basic.

The acting was great, especially Steve Carrell. That man is very funny. Always. Anne Hathaway was just as good, pushing forward a nice love story, Dwayne Johnson was better than expected, and Alan Arkin was OK. The cameos were pretty funny though, Bill Murray (WTF - random much?), HIRO from Heroes was in it (!), and James Caan's POTUS (I'm starting to get into the West Wing) was very realistic.

Look, all in all, we had a film with cliches, slapstick that was a bit overdone, jokes that fell flat (yellowcake?), some stupid development - but it couldn't bring the film down for me. I, unlike many reviewers, ask you to give it a chance - it may surprise you too. 3 stars.

Review - Kung Fu Panda

2008-06-30T17:33:00.004+10:00

Zac and I had nothing better to do today, so we headed off to see Kung Fu Panda, Jack Black's new film. And that's pretty much all we've heard haven't we. that it's Jack Black's movie. Now, don't get me wrong, he's a funny guy, but what about the supporting cast? Angelina Jolie, Dustin Hoffman (!), Jackie Chan, Seth Rogen, David Cross etc. What about their names on some of the posters? This is a clear cut example of bad advertising, Jack Black alone isn't going to pull as much of an audience as Jack Black and Co. So whilst that annoyed me, I let it slide whilst watching the film, just basing it on its merits.

I mean, it was OK. Some IMDb reviews say its one of the best animated flicks we've ever had, but to be honest, it doesn't go anywhere near Pixar's stronghold, nor does it give Shrek a run for it's money (except Shrek 3 - that was crap).

The storyline follows Po (Black), a noodle making panda who dreams of becoming a kung-fu master, and when he accidentally invades the arena when a Dragon Master is being chosen, he himself is offered the job. Hilarity ensues, well, a few laughs.

As enjoyable and funny as it was, it was very, for lack of a better word, stupid. The food montage, come on - like that helps the plotline. And the film was very formulaic, the struggle, the depression, the encouragement, the success. As if that's original.

The characters themselves were 2 dimensional, I'm sure the voiceover actors did their best but it seemed very shallow in terms of development. We didn't see any motivation and the audience was sort of led along as if we had no clue whatsoever.

Now that last paragraph was a bit harsh, so I'll correct this review. I didn't hate it, I didn't even dislike it. It had it's moments and if I was younger I'm sure it would have been the greatest film ever. But I'm not. It was good, it wasn't a waste of my time but it wasn't much of an insight - filled in the basics. So I'm giving it 2.5 out of 5.

Review - Pan's Labyrinth

2008-06-29T16:40:00.004+10:00

Wow.

That's a one word review for Guillermo Del Toro's masterpiece, Pan's Labyrinth.

If you were looking for a review with more depth, read on:

Vale had been bugging me to see this film for ages, and when I finally got the chance, the DVD screwed up in the player about 50min in, so I stopped watching and never got back to it. Well, today I sat down and, with nothing better to do, watched this film. It still stuffed up at the 50min mark, but i skipped the chapter and read that section of the screenplay - all was well.

Onto the film itself, this is a visual feast, the costuming alone may have outshone all the special effects involved. I have never been this captivated by the scenery before. And then contrasting this beauty was the violence - that's why it's MA here in Australia. Wow again - some very brutal deaths in this film, and Del Toro doesn't always hide it from the audience (The Farmer's Son - WTF?).

The storyline itself is part historical/part fantasy, with it being set in the times of Fascist Spain and focusing specifically on Vidal's command, a captain in Franco's army and our heroine's stepfather. Typical fairytale set-up, the stepfather/mother is always the bad guy/girl. Onto our heroine, Ofelia, a young Spanish girl who's widowed mother marries the Spanish captain. She reads a lot of fairytales and so when, by chance, a fairy-like creature finds her, her curiosity gets the better of her as she uncovers the secrets of Pan's Labyrinth. How Del Toro thought this up is beyond me - it is, as some reviewers have called it, and 'adult fairytale'.

So, how did it score? - a 4 out of 5. Cinema at it's most inventive.

Wordle Art

2008-06-27T20:18:00.004+10:00

I put the titles of films I've given 8-10 on IMDb into Wordle.net and this is what came out.

Aptly titled: "MovieTitles...Scrambled".

I fixed/improved it:

Review - Matchstick Men

2008-06-23T19:53:00.004+10:00

The premise of this film was actually quite clever: two con-men are working on a big con when one of them discovers he fathered a daughter 14 years ago and she shows up on his doorstep, eager to learn about him. What ensued, initially, was some great set-up work and some very funny moments. The characterisations, by Nicholas cage and Sam Rockwell were spot on, as was Alison Lohman's strange ability to cry on cue...always.

However, despite the enjoyable plot and direction from Ridley Scott, the film's ending left me feeling short-changed. I get the concept but the twist was just a tad unbelievable. If you've seen the film, you'll understand what I mean when I say - WTF. It was great until then - WHY DID YOU DO THAT?

Anyways, the film rates 3 stars. Check it out if you're bored.

Response to Donnie Darko

2008-06-10T12:26:00.004+10:00

Conor keeps telling me I should watch this movie, but I really don't know if I should watch it. See, I'm not much into mindf**k films, I generally tell them to f**k off, cause they annoy me. But, I think if I can get through the beginning of the film, then maybe I would be able to watch it. So, advice for anyone else, maybe you, like me, should try this one, and see if its as good as anyone says. Try it, it might be good.

Welcome to Film Club - Donnie Darko

2008-06-09T15:33:00.006+10:00

We're starting a new feature of the visuality. blog, and this is Film Club. The name pretty much speaks for itself but I'll continue anyway. Basically it's a few people watching a movie that is chosen by one of those people, allowing that one person to showcase and screen a movie that is dear to their heart.

The first of these was Richard Kelly's Donnie Darko, which was presented by Vale. The first "club group" was comprised of Conor (me), Vale, Zac and Heath (Vale's brother). The verdict was a resounding thumbs up.

Donnie Darko is a film not easily forgotten. It will stay in your head for ages, I guarantee you. Surrounding the titular character, a troubled teenager who sees very strange things, including a bunny rabbit named Frank, and his interactions at school, with his family and with his psychiatrist. It's essentially a drama, with sci-fi undertones but don't let that genre constrict the film, it's whatever you want it to be.

It's been compared to David Lynch films, in that it has a sort-of mindf**k nature, but Donnie Darko is in a league of its own. This however, leads to an unfortunate situation. As Vale put it "after doing Donnie Darko he'll(Richard Kelly) never be able to anything this good again".

UPDATE: I have finally given this thing a number. Even though I haven't watched it since, it's been mulling around in my head - 4.5/5 - who knows, with another viewing that might raise a little.

UPDATE: It did. 5 STARS

Next - swing and a miss...

2008-03-11T21:30:00.004+11:00

Next (2007) - 1 star

The concept of this film was actually what drew me to it, seeing 2 minutes into the future, based on the sci-fi master Phillip K. Dick's novel "The Golden Man", a very intriguing idea. However, like many adaptations of Dick's novels, the film falls short, in this case - extremely.

What we have in this film is the over-used nuclear bomb in major US city story (see The Peacemaker etc.). Now after reading that, one could question what the hell a psychic has to do with a nuclear bomb if he can only see 2min into the future. So did I even after seeing the film.

The plot has gigantic holes, the nuclear attack is never seen as a major catastrophe by anyone in the entire film - no panic at all, whilst the fluctuation of clairvoyance will annoy any sane viewer. If any of the film actually seems like reality - get some pills and take them.

Characterisation was not a strong point in this film. Chris (Cage) had no back-story other than a recitation of what happened to him in 3rd grade. Jessica Biel's character is likewise, let's not even touch Julianne Moore's role. The opposition, the bad guys in this film, some kind of terrorist organisation is never detailed and the viewer is left with a sense of depravity. The romance between Cage and Biel is another issue, being both creepy and contrived, with their relationship blossoming after such a short period of time with no real catalyst.

The acting is never realistic bar Biel's role, who surprisingly out-acts both Cage and Moore. The special effects are abysmal - modern technology should be able to make things blend in rather than stand out. And the narration at start and end? Come on, thats about as bad as The Golden Compass' narration.

And the script seems like it was written in a couple of days just to meet a deadline - no fact is involved and every generalisation of the FBI is evident.

But is there a saving grace for this film? Let's look at what garners those precious two stars (1/5). The ending was a very intriguing choice and I actually have to hand it to them for blind-sighting us like that, although I still don't like how it was made possible. There's the cool effect that highlights the different paths Cage could take - you'll know it when you see it. The best part of the film? The opening in the casino - very cool. Unfortunately after that it falls off Mt. Everest and hits the bottom.

There is a reason this film is labeled Action rather than Thriller...you get the picture.

visuality.

The Golden Compass or how Roger Ebert got it all wrong

2008-03-11T21:28:00.004+11:00

The Golden Compass - 2 stars

Shallow. Disappointing.

Not the kind of terms you would have expected from the film that critics labelled "a darker, deeper fantasy epic than the "Rings" trilogy, "The Chronicles of Narnia" or the "Potter" films". Thank you Roger Ebert for that quote.

What the hell was he thinking? Ebert is basically the most well known critic in America, maybe even the world for that matter. He gave it 4 stars, the highest rating he ever gives, whilst "The Shawshank Redemption", the film placed at #2 on IMDb's top 250, wallows with 3 1/2 stars.

Come on. Pull your thumb out.

This film was essentially rushed and shallow. I myself haven't even read the books and I can identify that painstakingly clear fact. Everything didn't all make sense - the dust? the parallel world? Don't worry, that's not a spoiler, that's the opening dialogue! The characters were badly drawn out, some not even at all, actually most not at all. The film seemed to be more of a fantasy than the subject matter! The structure was bad, the narrative was completely rushed and the journey seemed as if someone had been skipping the scenes like on a DVD. It all went way too quickly.

And then comes the Catholic issue. It's obvious why they are upset but seriously - the film doesn't depict the modern day Vatican, it depicts the Catholic Church that believed the Earth was flat, the one that jailed scientists for defying them. Any normal person can differentiate the both.

The positive side however, is the cinematography. Top notch effort. Landscapes were magnificent. If you enjoy all the cinematography in films - put this one on mute.

The casting was well done - Dakota Blue Richards is cute, and surprisingly less annoying than most kids in film! Daniel Craig and Eva Green are themselves, Nicole Kidman is OK, gets annoying at some points, Ian McKellen is very good as the polar bear and my favourite of the film - Sam Elliott.

I don't want to be scathing - and both my younger sister and little cousin loved it - so I'm giving it 4 (2/5).

visuality.

Starting back up again!

2008-03-11T21:26:00.002+11:00

After a prolonged absence of indifference towards blogging, the visuality. film blog is about to get back underway!

We will be adding the results of a newly formed film group, Film Club, as well as any film reviews that we can be bothered to write.

Until any new material comes up - let these older reviews suffice:

conor.

Zodiac

2007-07-17T20:37:00.000+10:00

Review No.1.
It's only fitting that the director of both Se7en and Fight Club gets the first pick of the bunch.

Ok, Zodiac.

I watched it whilst flying from Sydney to Singapore, so it was a different experience to actually being at the cinema.

Plot:

The plot revolves around the real-life character of Robert Graysmith, a cartoonist who is rapt up in the codes of a murderer known as the Zodiac, whilst the newspaper he works for tries to also get to the bottom of the mystery. Now, being based on the book by Graysmith himself, his opinion of who was the Zodiac is very obvious nearing the end and director David Fincher utilises this opinion accordingly.
IMDB: Based on the Robert Graysmith books about the real life notorious Zodiac, a serial killer who terrorized San Francisco with a string of seemingly random murders during the 1960s and 1970s.

Actor-wise:

Jake Gyllenhaal - Robert Graysmith: Excellent as the troubled cartoonist, a very 'bankable' actor nowadays
Robert Downey Jr. - Paul Avery: Character goes crazy. Fit's the part
Mark Ruffalo - Inspector David Toschi: he's pretty good, somewhat believable. Although he does appear as a trustworthy character.
Chloë Sevigny - Melanie: Some people like her, she just annoys me. I don't know why

Overall - 4 Stars

originality through visuality.

2007-06-19T21:26:00.000+10:00

Just what makes a truly original script?

Let us ponder over this questions. There is evidence for any angle to be taken, so let us look at it in general.

The basic topic of conversation is what are some of the more recent 'original' scripts that seem so uniques when you step back and look at them.

So let us begin compiling,

I shall open the bidding with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004), which was written by Charlie Kaufman and Michel Gondry. If you are not familiar with it the story line is as follows (in a synopsis from imdb):

"Joel is stunned to discover that his girlfriend Clementine has had her memories of their tumultuous relationship erased. Out of desperation, he contracts the inventor of the process, Dr. Howard Mierzwaik, to have Clementine removed from his own memory. But as Joel's memories progressively disappear, he begins to rediscover their earlier passion. From deep within the recesses of his brain, Joel attempts to escape the procedure. As Dr. Mierzwiak and his crew chase him through the maze of his memories, it's clear that Joel just can't get her out of his head." - provided by Focus Features

This idea is so out there, as is Gondry's 2006 release, Science des rêves, La (or in English - The Science of Sleep). I have not seen the latter but the former is something to view, for both its original storyline and creative directing.

conor.

2007-06-19T19:15:00.000+10:00

Hi all -

My first post. WOO. Anyway, You should I all see the movies in Conor's list up top. (I know there's only 3 of us so far :P). I haven't seen them all, but a few I have. I can totally recommend those ones at least. Ask me what they are.

Films I Must See

2007-06-18T18:19:00.001+10:00

I am very far behind in some areas of film viewing.
With this in mind, I have compiled a list of films to see.
Feel free to comment and add your own selections to this ever growing list

~~Se7en (1995)~~
~~Pulp Fiction (1994)~~
~~Lucky Number Slevin (2006)~~
Office Space (1999)
~~Donnie Darko (2001)~~
~~Blade Runner (1982)~~
~~American History X (1998)~~
~~Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)~~
~~Fight Club (1999)~~
Taxi Driver (1976)
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
Airplane! (1980)
The French Connection (1971)
Dirty Harry (1971)

conor.

Recommended Podcast

2007-06-18T18:05:00.001+10:00

Get to iTunes.

Get 'Movies You Should See'
Now.

It's really great, 5 poms talking about films, who actually know what is happening. At time of writing, I've only listened to one of them, 'The Sting' and it's good.

enjoy.

conor.

updated: Movies You Should See

Wilkommen zum die Theater

2007-06-18T17:57:00.000+10:00

Hi,

The title's in German because i felt like it.

So, welcome to the theatre as I write of stuff to do with films.

Reviews, previews and general rants.

conor.