Long Time...

Right, a few things have happened. I've moved to Berlin. It had been in the cards, but it then all became concrete in a very short space of time, and then I left, and then I had to find a place to live, and now I have and I'm in Berlin and I love Berlin and I am only here for a couple of months so I'm going to try and make the most of it. Of course, I love films, so they are going to keep popping up, but there's no way I'm going to hit my target of 365 over a year - I'll be very lucky to hit 270 I think. Still, a good effort considering.


I'm also way behind on writeups, so I'm going to give some very brief notes on all of those that I'm behind on over the next few entries, spreading them out a little.


First things first:

I'd never seen Oliver Stone's Wall Street until recently. Never. It had always kind of drifted around wanting me to watch it, always there hovering somewhere in the middle of the list of titles I want to pick up. Probably due to the recent release of the sequel I finally got it out. I gotta say, I didn't overly love it. Michael Douglas' performance in it was fine, but even that didn't really wow me. Strong, yes, but not mind-blowing. Some good moments, the 'greed' speech being obvious, but I've never much liked Charlie Sheen either. That phone of Gordon's is hilarious. And sure, it was entertaining enough, towards the lower level of enjoyment. Let's go with 2 stars.

I saw Inception right when it came out in the UK (that's how far behind I was to start, and then the last almost month in Berlin has taken even further behind...) and came out of it really, really liking it. Visually amazing, though goddammit I want to see Leonardo DiCaprio smile at some stage soon - after Shutter Island and then this I'm so tired of his furrowed brow, and I know he can do other things. Joseph Gordon Levitt (future husband) I loved, but I'll love him in pretty much anything, and Tom Hardy gave his character a difference to what one might imagine for his Hollywood breakout - his Bronson promise will hopefully come good. I thought the film as a whole was very cerebral, very clever, but lacked an emotional core. I sense that the Marion Cotillard segments were aiming for it, but I don't think Christopher Nolan managed to pull that off. Now that I think about it, his films always seem a little detached from the heart. It is a terrific film, a very showy piece that doesn't go over the top, and what it does show, it shows well. I don't understand how people found it confusing - if you're paying even half the attention any film deserves, they spell it out pretty clearly as to which dream layer you're in. Very good, but not great, and a couple of months on my desire to rewatch that was very strong after exiting the theatre has become a general feeling that it's not necessary for me to go there again any time soon. Very entertaining, but not earth-shattering. 4 stars.

I was alive in the 1980s, but only just, and I've never much liked the period. It's only recently that the fashion, the music, the general vibe of the decade hasn't grated on me, so I'm putting the blame for having never seen The Breakfast Club right in the court of the 80s in general. John Hughes' seminal teen flick starring Emilio Estevez, Judd Nelson, Molly Ringwals and Ally Sheedy was fun to watch with its broad characterisations and strong stereotypes. As a basic introduction to cliques and generalised judgements of character it works well by keeping it light while introducing us to the characters. Maybe if my viewing of it had been more timely, instead of twenty-five years after the initial release, my opinion would be different. Maybe if I sat down and laughed and watched it with friends I'd have enjoyed it more. That being said, it was fun, but it's not in my own personal canon. 2.5 stars.

Melissa Leo gives a tour de force performance in Courtney Hunt's debut feature Frozen River, which won the Dramatic Prize at Sundance in 2008 and netted Leo a deserved Oscar nomination for Best Actress. Leo is single mother trying to get together the money to pay for her new double wide before the cut off date when she loses her deposit when luck finds her united with a native American people smuggler. On the border of the US and Canadia, the pair take people back and forth between two reservations on opposite sides of the frozen river that is the national border. It's a marvelous story of what two different women will do for their children in very different circumstances. I wasn't a huge fan of the ending, it all felt a little 'righteous Hollywood', but there's no denying the power of Leo's performance. Hunt is surely someone to watch. 3 stars.

When I saw that Caligula was the next film on my list I did kind of laugh out loud. This film is a fucking mess, but a brilliant and hilarious mess nonetheless. It was only after the fact that I realised there are about a trillion different cuts out there, and I saw the tamest, shortest one. I'm half inspired to go and find the original 7000 minute version or whatever, but then I also remember how bad this was, and despite the camp hilarity, do I really want to do that again? Though the cast is terrific - Peter O'Toole, Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, John Gielgud - it is a ham-fisted mess, apparently directed by Tinto Brass though with financing from Penthouse's Bob Guccione really directing the themes of the film and what goes on screen. Caligula is the young heir to the Roman throne, and after doing away with his predecessor takes over, becoming quite popular despite his eccentricities. There's a bunch of debauchery involved. There is incest and intrigue and coercion, and finally Caligula is murdered. It really is a terrible film, but so terrible as to be almost entirely watchable. I will one day hunt down the longer version. 1 star.

Africa And Coffee.

Isabelle Huppert fest! Though, going to write this film made me realise ANOTHER film that I had failed to write up, 35 Shots Of Rum. Seriously, every time I think I'm making some headway on this backlog of lists, I come across things I forgot and it just keeps growing. On the plus side, it does make the deficit I need to make up somewhat shorter.


So, the amazing Isabelle Huppert. We may remember that we love her almost as much as life itself. So it is shocking to me that this is only the third time she has shown here, after this one and this one. But here you go, her third appearance here, for her latest French film White Material.

Frail. But oh so strong.

Claire Denis (who did 35 Shots Of Rum, hence why that memory was triggered) takes Ms Huppert to Africa where she puts her in charge of a coffee plantation, whilst all around her civil war rages. It's a damaging state of affairs, where being white makes her the enemy, regardless of how fair she may be to her black charges. Complicating this situation is the presence of her family, particularly her rebellious, antagonistic teenage son Manuel (Nicolas Duvauchelle), the fact that this plantation is her home and she does not desire to leave it for the safer confines of her native France, and the added fear of fiscal problems relating to the fact that the plantation is failing anyway and she wants to at least get in the final crop that is ready for picking.


Maria (Huppert) risks everything in order to get this last crop. But it is definitely more complex than merely wanting or needing the money. Maria will see giving up and running away as failure of the highest order, especially coupled with the financial problems they will face. To avoid this she is very willing to put the safety, and even the lives of herself and her family on the line - and it is definitely Maria making the decisions. Her husband André (Christopher Lambert) is present but weak, castrated even in the face of the much stronger, more independent and awesomely willful Maria. This is pussywhipping that could cost a life. Plus, Maria complicates matters again by beginning to shelter a rebel officer - she is drawing attention to herself when they should just be trying to slide under the radar and hope for the best. But it is not in Maria's nature to fly under the radar, not when she is being hard done by. She is hardwired to fight back, no matter what the cost.


Huppert is perfectly placed for the role, her wiry frame (looking scarily tiny in the loose and flimsy frocks she was donning for the African heat) adding an outward fragility that was reversed by her steely demeanour, allowing her a contrast that, sure, has been used before, but with her expressive eyes able to radiate iciness like no others this always proves impressive. Duvauchelle's very European looked contrasted well with the African locale, making his obstreperous rebellion almost valid due to how out of place he was. Lambert's presence was limited but very strong, appropriately submissive but never to the point of fully bending over to his wife. Rather than a passive husband doing what he was told, you get the opinion that he has very strong views and that he will fight for them, but he is ultimately steamrolled without mercy, a much stronger force of nature barreling him out of the way.


Denis has crafted a good film, though not quite a great one. Strong performances can't quite get past the fact that the film seems to keep wandering down the one track, and the subplots are never fully fleshed out of given time to take hold. The dominant narrative is very clear, but everything underpinning it is murky. It provides some support, but not quite enough to stop the primary forces from feeling a bit repetitive. The elements were almost universally strong, but they were let down a little in the ultimate grand scheme.


But it's a good film. Definitely a good one. 3 stars.

Don't Call Me Cock-Hole, Bitch!

In 2005 New Zealander Taika Waititi nabbed an Oscar nomination for his live action short Two Cars, One Night. I think it got a fair bit of attention in Australia because of the fact that we seemed to be having quite a run in the short film categories of the Oscars over that period, with Harvie Krumpet taking out the Short Animation award, Birthday Boy and The Mysterious Geographic Explorations Of Jasper Morello picking up nominations and Inja also getting a notice in the Live Action category, all between 2002 and 2005. And, as we know, when it comes to major awards, New Zealand has always qualified as Australia. It's how we roll.


So, when his debut feature Eagle vs Shark came out a couple of years later (having been worked through the Sundance labs in 2005), everyone was taking note, waiting to see what would happen. Not a lot did happen, and while I liked the film, I can't really say that I'm surprised by this. While it has been likened to Napoleon Dynamite, it is much deeper and less superficially comic, making it that much darker and harder to simply laugh at - rather, the laughter has to come from a place of identification, or else risk being that of one taking advantage of those in a much weaker position.

Lily (co-creator Loren Horsley) and Jarrod (Jemaine Clement) are awkward social misfits. Lily works at a fast food burger outlet, with a crush on Jarrod, who works in a gaming store and is more interested in Lily's co-worker. One day, when the co-worked is not in, Jarrod drops off an invite to a party he is holding. Lily dutifully passes the invite on, but when it is brushed off without even a glance she decides to attend the party herself, dressing up in the costume of her favourite animal (a shark) as requested on the invite. The party is attended by similar apparent misfits, and the party culminates in a video game competition, with Lily ending up competing in the final to Jarrod (dressed as an eagle - get it?), losing primarily because she spends much of the time staring at her crush.


So begins an awkward and seemingly ill-conceived relationship between sweet-hearted Lily, who is willing to put up with a lot of mistreatment, and selfish, confused and angry Jarrod, a compulsive liar who by his own admission is 'too complex.' As his complexity continues to rear its ugly head, however, Lily tires of putting up with it and determines to escape. Her determination is, however, thoroughly thwarted by a bus timetable, allowing for Jarrod's hard and created shell to collapse under the weight of his own fear, letting the scared little boy inside climb out.


The comparisons to Napoleon Dynamite are valid, but as mentioned there is a much deeper commentary on social pressure underlying Waititi's work. The laughs are derived from the same comedic realm, but where Dynamite's are heartier guffaws, Shark's tend to more reserved, tending to the sardonic or the relieved. The comedy is also very evenly spread - Waititi's script has been very well honed to reveal his characters gradually over the course of the film without there being a need for an expository act of somberness to give depth to otherwise under-realised characters.


That being said, the film did feel somewhat longer than its fairly short ninety minute runtime. The pace, while even, is slow, and the grouchiness of Jarrod coupled with the meekness of Lily are quite draining as prolonged thematic elements. In fact, there is very little in the way of light in the film, either light characters or laughs or storylines. For the most part, until the film begins its small arc to a conclusion, all of those introduced have similar problems or contributions to the world as our initial protagonists. And when the light does crack through as the film closes, it doesn't seem bright enough or long enough to truly lift the film up.


It is a great debut, obviously very intricately worked to arrive at the final product, incredibly lean. As a study of Waititi's abilities it works very well - it's a great little calling card that has obviously worked as his second feature Boy played at Sundance this year in the World Dramatic competition (Eagle vs Shark played in that competition also in 2007.) I will definitely be looking out for a chance to see Boy as soon as I can, because I'm sure Waititi has progressed leaps and bounds and that could only mean wonders for his sophomore effort. In the meantime, Eagle vs Shark is definitely worth a look, though don't expect fireworks. Solid and interesting, but not earth shattering. 3 stars.

Fuck This Shit, I'm Getting The Bazooka.

I'm not sure how long ago I watched this, because it suddenly struck me the other day that I had forgotten to include it in my list of films to write up (which is shrinking! It is! There are now thirteen films left on it! Oh, wait, fourteen. I remembered another film I forgot to add last night. Shit.)


There was a lot of attention for Kick-Ass (based on the comic series), mostly related to the foul-mouthed young girl Hit Girl (memorably played by Chloe Moretz.) Really, though, it wasn't that controversial. Yes, it was foul-mouthed, but I've heard worse at work. I've said worse at work. To my boss. Let's be honest, we're all a little over the top when we want to be.

Kick-Ass centres around the young Dave (Aaron Johnson, looking a solid three or four years younger than his already young nineteen - seriously, he looks like he could pass as a developed twelve year old.) Wondering why no one ever tries to become a super-hero, he takes it upon himself to be the first real, masked, costumed super-hero, altering a diving costume to suit his purpose and naming himself Kick-Ass. His first attempt ends with him in hospital, but his second attempt becomes a YouTube sensation, leading him to set up a site to attract business, as it were. A girl at school whom Dave has a crush on, and who is convinced Dave is gay, a ruse he is more than happy to play up to if it means he gets to spend more time close to her, is being harassed by a drug dealer, and Dave convinces her to contact Kick-Ass, but when he goes to confront these crooks he finds himself in a world of trouble, only to be saved by Hit Girl, who is being watched over by her father Damon, or Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage in a terrific role for him.) Hit Girl and Big Daddy later contact Kick-Ass to tell him that the three could work together.


Big Daddy is an ex-cop with an axe to grind with a criminal mastermind, Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong), whose son Chris (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) forms a ruse to pose as a superhero, Red Mist, to win Kick-Ass' trust and lure him into a trap. Hijinks ensue, with some casualties, some funny lines, and the inevitable set up for a sequel.


I remember walking out of the film pleasantly surprised by Matthew Vaughn's third directorial output. Johnson didn't overly impress me, pulling out that gawky charm we see in far too many American films, where the loser becomes the winner. He was fine, but predictable. Moretz and Cage were both terrific, highly caricatured but very entertaining. Mintz-Plasse was kind of irritating. I know the point was to not like him, but I did find myself wanting to punch him in the face from the outset. Maybe, if I see him in another film, I'd like his performance for it, but at the moment I just think he's kind of frustrating.


I must say it was a refreshing take on a superhero film, not sugar-coated for a teenage audience. Christopher Nolan's two Batman outings were very good, very dark, not really kids films, but they still had a hell of a lot in them for the mid-teen market, whereas I doubt many mid-teens would have been able to get into Kick-Ass without sneaking in (though I'm dead certain that the rating on the film would not have stopped the majority of those wanting to get their hands on it from witnessing it somewhere - more than likely illegally on the internet, little bastards...) The film seemed made more for the latent teenager in all of us, with all of the swearing and ridiculous suits and screwed-up attack plans. I mean, who doesn't harbour a little bit inside of them strongly desiring to don the latex and be the good guy? Or the bad guy? Whatever, just give me the ab-suit Batman wears so well. Sure would save on the gym.


But, I've pretty much forgotten the film now. I had to look it up to remind myself what it was all about outside of the general, vague notion. Granted, it did come back to me as I read the plot outline, but I really had to prompt myself, because it just didn't stick with me. It was a lot of fun at the time, but it didn't even have the hangover that a few bottles of wine may bring. I don't recall thinking about it once after it finished. Yes, I watched it a solid few weeks ago, but I can remember most of the other films I've put up over the last week, which were all as far back, if not more. But Kick-Ass stayed with me not at all. I think it had a fun soundtrack, but I couldn't even tell you if that was accurate, so little has it stayed in mind.


That isn't necessarily a terrible thing, mind. It fulfilled its purpose for me, which was an evening's entertainment. It properly entertained me a lot more than I thought it was going to, which is a positive. If there had been something more that made it stick with me, I would have been well surprised, shocked even. All I'm saying is that I don't think it's cinema for the ages. It's cinema for right now, and it's fine in that role. What will surprise me most, however, is if people remember it in a decade. 3 stars.

How Could You Love Him After Only Three Days?

I was really looking forward to watching Zhang Yimou's follow-up to Hero, which I loved. But I was strangely nonplussed by it. Maybe my love of Hero built it up too much, or maybe some of the ideas of it had been done a little too often before, but House Of Flying Daggers didn't resonate with me as much as it apparently has with others.

In old China, law and order has fallen into disarray with the rising of the house of the Flying Daggers, a Robin Hood outfit dedicated to robbing the rich to help the poor. The government manages to capture a leader of the house, Mei (Ziyi Zhang), a blind girl with an uncanny knife-throwing ability. In order to try and find their way to the base of the Flying Daggers and, ultimately, to their new leader, the government instructs a police captain, Jin (Takeshi Kaneshiro), to break her out of prison. With fellow captain Leo (Andy Lao), Jin is supposed to get Mei to lead them to the house. Leo organises staged ambushes to convince Mei of their authenticity while Jin and Mei are slowly falling for each other. Finally they make it to the house of the Flying Daggers, with a number of epic scenes and battles.


I must confess, the film is resoundingly beautiful. Truly stunning. The use of colours, especially the iconic green scene in the bamboo forest, is phenomenal, a complete shock to the senses in a totally good way. Ziyi Zhang is also very good, in addition to being stunningly beautiful. Of the men, Lao stood out for me as the better, more nuanced performance, while Kaneshiro didn't seem to have as many layers to his characterisation - it seemed much more surface and basic. He is, however, much the cuter.


The cinematography by Zhao Xiaoding was excellent, as noted, and rightly Oscar nominated, though I do to this day wonder how the amazing Christopher Doyle was overlooked for his work on Hero. Yimou seemed to get a little more epic in this love story than was entirely necessary, taking on from Hero and trying to one-up himself rather than just letting it ride the way it needed to, but such unnecessary grandeur can be mostly excused in a film such as this.


I guess, in the end, the elements seemed to work independently, but the film just didn't strike me in any great way. It was fine, I'm not going to knock it, I definitely enjoyed watching it, but looking back on it there is nothing in it other than the beauty of the scenery that really makes me remember it. But less than 3 stars seems wrong, so 3 stars it is.

I'm Just Mad 'Cause I Suck.

And she does! It's true. The title for this post was almost 'I'll Suck Your Dick If You Give Me The Job I Want', but I decided against it... instead putting it in the opening paragraph. Yeah!

Sherry (Maggie Gyllenhaal, who we love, remember) is the reformed addict of the title, SherryBaby, fresh out of prison and on a curfew, moving into a halfway house filled with other women in similar situations. All she wants is her baby, Alexis (Ryan Simpkins - seriously, are the Simpkins' the new Fannings? This is the fourth film after Revolutionary Road, Little Children and A Single Man that one or both have been in) back, who is currently living with her brother, Bobby (Brad William Henke) and his wife Lynette (Bridget Barkan.) Bobby is happy that Sherry is out, but Lynette is less than pleased, especially when Sherry, in anger and frustration at the halfway house and those who living inside it, decides to decamp to their place in New Jersey. Bobby's rule is that there are to be no drugs in the house, but Lynette just wants her gone, and isn't afraid to turn Alexis against her mother.


Sherry and Bobby's father Bob Sr (Sam Bottoms) visits with his new wife and they give Sherry a drink, not realising that all addiction is her problem, not just the heroin they recognise. Sherry gets emotional but while being comforted by her father he touches her breast - Sherry, not apparently upset by this, but by everything in general, leaves and goes out to score. She uses before turning up to her AA meeting under the influence, helped by her friend Dean (Danny Trejo), who takes her home and helps her to clean up. Meanwhile, Sherry has moved out of her brother's house and into a motel, where her parole office visits. She confesses she has been using, and pleads for outpatient rehab treatment - she is told that her only options are inpatient or jail. He gives her the weekend to decide, and she takes Alexis on a mini-golfing bonding trip, only to take her over the border on her way to escaping to Florida - though she never makes it all the way.


Gyllenhaal's performance is powerful in a movie that is otherwise only a little better than average. As the conflicted, addicted mother she turns a treat, over the top and attention craving as you can see that her weakness is still very much there, not really hidden under the surface, instead gripping her powerfully in its claws as she badly tries to ignore it. You can see that her only real desire to get clean is to stay with her daughter. Being clean in itself doesn't overly appeal to her - she hasn't been rehabilitated to that extent - and if Alexis weren't around I'm sure she would have been back on the dope much faster than it took for her to finally succumb. But Alexis is a powerful incentive - though not immediately powerful enough.


Henke is very good as her long-suffering but devoted brother, showing her uncompromising love and support despite how much she has screwed up in the past. His love for Alexis as his own is touching, and his ability to calmly ignore the protestations of his spouse in favour of the blood relationship never offends Lynette. He manages to respect his wife without alienating his sister, and Henke is in a big way responsible for this split.


The remainder of the supports are small roles that are pulled off perfectly fine. The film itself, however, seems to kind of travel along quietly without really seeming to get somewhere. As a portrait of addiction and desire it works fine, but without any redemption or closure it just feels a little hollow. In the end, it ends up feeling a bit empty, unfinished. But for debut writer/director Laurie Collyer, it's a reasonably good start. I'm sure she has a lot left in her. 3 stars.

Oh My God, You Sound Famous Already.

Jeffrey Wright fest! It would appear that we announce a festival in honour of an artist when we hit three films that they have been involved with. And unless he popped up in something the I didn't recognise, this is Wright's third appearance after this and this. We do love him so.

Basquiat was a bit of a breakout for Mr Wright, despite much acclaimed stage work (including Angels In America, a role he reprised on television.) And it's a beautifully juicy role to be given, a biopic of artist Jean-Michel Basquiat, friend of Warhol, major acclaim, kooky, rags to riches, all that business. And a seriously cool cast alongside you - Benicio Del Toro, Claire Forlani, Michael Wincott, David Bowie, Dennis Hopper, Gary Oldman, Christopher Walken, Willem Dafoe, Parker Posey, Courtney Love, Tatum O'Neal... wow. Plus! A film about an enfant terrible of the art world directed by an enfant terrible of the art world! What more could you want?


Basquiat (Wright) is a druggie, living rough, earning some notoriety for his graffiti work as Samo and the phrases he sketches on streetscapes. He works in an art gallery run by Mary (Posey), hanging paintings with an electrician also trying to make his way as an artist (Willem Dafoe) while Mary and her client, Albert (Oldman) abuse him until he walks out on them. He does some sketches and, with his friend Benny (Del Toro), manages to convince Andy Warhol (Bowie) and his manager Bruno (Hopper) to purchase these sketches - Warhol, in his terrific deadpan manner, comments after Basquiat's departure that they're actually good. Eventually, art dealer Rene Ricard (Wincott) spots one of his paintings at a party and tracks down Basquiat. The artist, still doing copious amounts of drugs as he tries and succeeds in romancing waitress Gina (Forlani), is quickly turned into a star, though on the way he burns many, many of his closest allies, including Rene and Gina. The destructive clinicism of Warhol's artistic cynicism starts to wear him down, and with no one there to say no, Basquiat spirals downwards.

Wright as Basquiat is fantastic, fully inhabiting the fear and fearlessness of success, the stoic drive behind the fragile artist, the self-belief and arrogance mixed with a paranoia that he might fade as fast as he rose. The supports, especially Oldman, Wincott and particularly Bowie, are terrific. Bowie as Warhol is almost scary in his disconnect from the world around him. Whether or not he is a perfect Warhol portrayer, he is perfect for this film.


It has been noted that the film can be seen as much as being about director Schnabel - I don't know a great deal about either artist outside of a decent knowledge of their work and where they fit into their respective movements, but even I picked up on distinct similarities between the characterised Basquiat and the real Schnabel. His pyjama wearing, for example. But whether or not the film is accurate to the truth of Basquiat's life, it doesn't really matter anyway. The film is an artwork by Julian Schnabel taking Basquiat's life as a leaping-off point, and like any great work of art it is not just technique but the emotion put into it, and that emotion is always going to be drawn from the artist themselves. So rather than seeing the film as a biopic, it is probably instead best to view it as a fictional narrative built around the basics of the artist, interpreted through the eyes of another artist who obviously holds the character in high regard.


But does the film work? In many ways, yes. The riveting performances and great cameos keep you watching and caring, despite the fact that Basquiat is in many ways repugnant once he gains his fame. But the film does not reach the heights of Schnabel's later The Diving Bell And The Butterfly, or even his Before Night Falls. It is, however, a solid debut and an interesting take on an artist's story. 3 stars.

You Are The Only Home I Ever Had.

Must hurry up. Quickly on Steven Spielberg's Munich from 2005.

Firstly, I think Spielberg is a very competent director. He knows very well what he's doing and how to accomplish it, which generally makes perfectly watchable and enjoyable movies, but I never really find that they grab hold of me and make me want to jump and scream and cry and laugh. I find myself sitting through them fine, and then not really thinking about them again. This goes along roughly the same lines for Munich, a film about the terrorist hijinks revolving around Palestine and Israel at the 1972 Munich Olympic Games.


It has a pretty good cast, though, as an Australian who remembers Eric Bana growing up on screen as a comedian, and often an average one (I'm looking at you, The Eric Bana Show), I find it quite hard to see past his history when viewing him in a dramatic setting. Here, he acquits himself fine. The supporting players are fantastic, including Daniel Craig (who it took me a while to recognise), Mathieu Amalric, Mathieu Kassovitz and Geoffrey Rush (who managed to reign in his often camp sensibility for this serious picture.) Plus, it's a very interesting and compelling story, somewhat one-sided as it is.


The film is fine, there is nothing wrong with it, but I just didn't love it. I enjoyed it, and won't watch it again. And that's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. 3 stars.

I'm Not Going To Be Okay, Bud.

In the midst of Gus Van Sant's Death trilogy (here and here) Vincent Gallo made a film that was, by many, derided as the worst film to ever play in competition at Cannes. Granted, the version of Gallo's The Brown Bunny that premiered at Cannes was almost 30% longer than the final theatrical release, but I don't know what all the fuss is about. Sure, it's not a terrific film, but I've seen worse from the Cannes competition - much worse. And there were many similarities to Van Sant's death trilogy (hence the opening): moody following shots; silence; long stretches of apparent nothingness speaking much more than the lack of words would attest. My main curiosity is how the hell this film cost US$10mil to make (quoting the estimate on imdb.com here...)

Gallo (writer, director, lead actor, cinematographer... anything else? Oh yes, camera operator, producer, editor, art director, production designer, makeup, blah blah you get the point) is Bud, a motorcycle racer who has just finished up a race in New Hampshire and is apparently heading over the California for the next one. He stops at a gas station and hits on the young female attendant, Violet (Anna Vareschi), somehow convincing her to come with him. He drops her at her house, she goes in to pack, she comes back out, he is gone.


His next stop is at Daisy's parents' house, a girl we do not know. He says he lived next door when he was growing up and chats to the parents about Daisy, about how the parents visited Bud and Daisy when they lived in California together (they don't remember), and about her pet bunny rabbit, sitting there in the same room, according to the parents the same rabbit she had when Bud was growing up next door. He stops at a pet store after he leaves and is told that rabbits don't live longer than five or six years - his repeated request for confirmation makes you assume that Daisy's rabbit must be somewhat older than that, or that the memory of her parents is somewhat... lacking. He continues to a highway rest shelter where he sees a woman (Cheryl Tiegs) sitting on her own, sipping a cup of coffee. He walks over to her and they begin to kiss, passionately, before he leaves again. Barely a word is spoken between them.


Stopping to get his bike checked on the way, he arrives in California and returns to the house he shared with Daisy, leaving her a note letting her know where he is staying. Daisy (Chloë Sevigny) turns up and the two talk about old times, argue, and then the infamous unsimulated fellatio scene appears. But does it?


Like I said, it's not terrible. It's a rambling melancholic memory-trip, bringing up emotions in Bud and with a great kick at the end that does probably save the film from being below-average. Gallo was pretty poor in his lead role, not really lending anything to the film that many other actors could have, and have in similar films in the past. Stumbling through without allowing any real glimpses into what is behind those eyes of his, he is saved by the naivety of Violet, the strength of despair in the woman at the rest stop, and the power of Sevigny's Daisy. Sevigny really is the saving grace of the film - she's a terrific actress, and brings to Daisy a sorrow and pain that manages to show you as much about Bud as it does about herself.


It's a 3 star film. Middling, really. Not terrible, not great. Just... there.

America Makes Everyone Give Up Smoking.

Mira Nair's 2001 international hit Monsoon Wedding is a seemingly simple but surprisingly complex tale set around a traditional Punjabi wedding during the rainy season. Expensive and elaborate, it brings together family from all corners of the globe, one of very few things that can do this - guests travel from Australia, the US, all over India.

Ostensibly, the film centres on the father of the bride, Lalit (Naseeruddin Shah), but his connectedness with the family sees a number of subplots come in. The bride, Aditi (Vasundhara Das), has been having an affair with her married boss, Vikram (Sameer Arya), a television presenter who will not leave his wife. Thus, she is having an arranged marriage to Hemant (Parvin Debas), whom she only met a couple of weeks earlier. It is rushed as he lives in America. During the film, they get to know each other for the first time in the couple of days leading up to the wedding, including arguments and reconciliations - a relationship and courtship crammed together into a matter of hours.


Ria (Shefali Shetty), a cousin of Aditi, provides the dramatic subplot, having been abused by an uncle Tej (Rajat Kapoor), Lalit's brother in law. She speaks out over the wedding weekend to stop a similar fate befalling her young cousin Aliyah. The contracted wedding event organiser PK Dubey (Vijay Raaz) gives us what is the true, love for love's sake subplot (as opposed to the pragmatic love story of the bride and groom) as he falls for the family's maid Alice (Tillotama Shome.) There is a gay subplot in the lack of masculinity shown by Aditi's younger brother Varun (Ishaan Nair), and a more modern flirt-fest involving Aditi's cousin, recently returned from Melbourne.


It's a lot of stories, and I think that doesn't help the story. It just feels like too many. Sure, it's a look at what goes on in the lead up to a wedding, the family secrets that can come out when under pressure, the feelings spread through the air, but none of the storylines quite hit home. I think they all get diluted a little too much by having to compete for air. It did look beautiful, however, captured by Declan Quinn, and the colours in the design of the film were, as expected for something taking heavy Bollywood influence, bold, rich and stunning.


It was an ok film, I'd say. Not a great one. Not a bad one. A fine way to spend a couple of hours, but not one I'm going to go back and repeat in a huge hurry. 3 stars.

Fry Me A Steak And Try To Use Meat This Time!

So, I was sitting there reading Peter Biskind's Easy Riders Raging Bulls, all about the New Hollywood of the 1970s, and it kept occurring to me that I'd heard so much about these director's and their films but I'd actually seen very few of them. Hence viewings of things like Easy Rider, Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and this one, The Last Picture Show. I've seen Peter Bogdanovich's Paper Moon, distractedly, a few years ago, but otherwise this was my first of his, despite having known his name almost as long as I have been able to talk (ok, maybe not that long, but I've known it for a loong time considering I'd not watched his films.)

The film takes place in a small town in southern USA, around the time of the popularisation of television. Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Duane (Jeff Bridges) are two young residents of the town, friends. Sonny is dating Charlene (Sharon Taggart) while Duane is with Jacy (Cybill Shepherd.) It's between WWII and the Korean War, and the kids are pretty bored in town, going to films and dances, flirting with many, though for the most part staying true to their relationships. Jacy is invited to a pool party, where everyone is naked, and develops a bit of a crush on Bobby (Gary Brokette), but he won't have her as long as she's a virgin. After nailing Duane she ditches him over the phone, but then discovers that Bobby has eloped with someone else. Meanwhile, Sonny has broken up with Charlene (it never seemed like it was going anywhere much) and taken up with Ruth (Cloris Leachman), the wife of his high school basketball coach. Jacy finds out and goes after Sonny, who starts up with her, while Duane has joined the army. Jacy learns of this affair and starts going after Sonny, but ends up dabbling with the young Abeline (Clu Gulager), who is having an affair with her mother Lois (Ellen Burstyn.) While this is going on the old owner of the picture house Sam the Lion (Ben Johnson) has died (Sonny and Duane were on a weekend road trip to Mexico at the time) and Sonny has inherited the pool hall he also owned. The picture house is failing, and the last show is announced for while Duane is back in town briefly just before shipping out to Korea. At the same time, Billy (Sam Bottoms), Sam the Lion's old helper, is hit by a truck and killed. Devastated, Sonny runs back to Ruth while Duane goes off to war.


Writing it out like that (it's all a bit disjointed... it's a hard one to describe) it sounds like a big bed-hopping farce. It really doesn't play like that at all. The death of the picture house is really a metaphor for the death of Sonny and Duane's youth - death, inheritance, affairs all make themselves known in their lives.


Truthfully, I wasn't blown away by the film. I thought Johnson and Leachman deserved their Oscars for their work, and Bridges and Burstyn deserved their nominations. In fact, all of the performances were solid. And the film floated along fine, but it did feel like it was floating. It never really seemed to capitalise on the possibilities that lay before it, instead happily chugging along without seeming to have a great deal of point. That being said, it wasn't unenjoyable. I just expected a lot more.


And because I'm so behind on writing up and still have to watch another film tonight, I'm going to leave it at that. 3 stars. Maybe I'll revisit some time and like it more.

I Have Been CLenching My Fucking Fists Since I Was Six Years Old.

I have a copy of this film back home in Australia, but I never watched it completely. It took me a long time to get around to watching it in the first place, and then my DVD screwed up about two thirds of the way through and I gave up, figuring I'd give it another shot a few days later, and then never putting it back on. I hadn't overly enjoyed the opening of Candy, you see, and I think I was unfavourably comparing it to Little Fish, which had come out the year and was a better film.

The Candy of the title is played by Abbie Cornish, a couple of years after her mammoth breakout with Somersault. She has met Dan, a heroin addict, a loser, played be Heath Ledger, and dives into the scene, starting off snorting and ending up arguing over needles. Deeply in love with each other they keep falling deeper and deeper into drugs, unable to keep themselves together, unable to pay rent, unable to come up with any money, stealing, begging off family, prostituting themselves, anything they can to get one more hit. Candy gets pregnant and they decide the have to stop, preparing themselves and locking themselves in their room, telling their friends not to answer their calls, falling to pieces in scenes reminiscent of what Ewan McGregor goes through in Trainspotting a decade earlier. When Candy miscarries the two fall apart even more, deciding on a move to the country and a stint on methadone to try and get themselves clean.


It all starts off ok, they're distraught but they're together and trying to rebuild something new and clean together, but Candy quickly starts a fling with a neighbour, before descending into madness, writing their life story in paints and crayons all over the walls of the house before finding herself in an institution. After rehab she tracks Dan down, but Dan doesn't want to drag her back into his world and knows their relationship was only ever functional with drugs, so lets her go.


This, I've decided, is my favourite Cornish role. She starts it with the same problems as I have with her in most other films, but her breakdown towards the end, her screaming match with her mother in the country after a ruined lunch, showed me depth I haven't really seen in her. I was more impressed than I expected to be. Ledger was solid if not exemplary, and I think he just went from strength to strength over the last couple of years of his life, becoming something truly sensational. Geoffrey Rush, as their gay confidant, camps it up but that kind of works here, and Noni Hazlehurst as Candy's mother is extraordinary. (Sidenote: I grew up watching her on Playschool and for years didn't realise she was an accomplished actress earlier in her career, so when I saw her first in Little Fish and then here, both times playing the swearing, hysterical mother of a drug addict, I found it amazingly confronting. She is truly incredible as an actress.) Tony Wilson as her father gives a nice, calm antidote to the wound up mother, and Tom Budge as Candy and Dan's friend is, as always, a revelation. He keeps going from strength to strength, with roles in films like Ten Empty and Last Train To Freo really cementing himself as a talent to keep your eye out for. Plus he can bring the same intensity to the stage - brilliant.


Candy isn't the debut feature from director Neil Armfield, but it was 16 years after his previous effort, so I'm kind of counting it. He's a huge stage director in Australia, creative director of the well-respected Belvoir Street Theatre in Sydney, and his love of theatrics shows in the film. While the book on which the film is based, by Luke Davies, is very dark, very real, the film isn't. The fairytale love aspect comes through in heightened reality, but the trauma it leads to never hits home. Dan never looked like a drug addict, Candy never felt skanky enough, it all just remained a little airbrushed, a little safe, a drug story for the upper-middle class dreaming of the romance of the gutter. It's not bad, but it's not great, though I did find myself a little more affected at the end than I thought. It passed, though, and it passed quickly. So 3 stars it shall be.

It's In My Nature.

Woah, so somehow I've managed to fall behind by eight (count 'em, eight) films over the last few days. Which I think on the one hand is quite impressive (I've watched eight films in the last few days! Woohoo! I've almost caught up on my 365 thing!) and on the other is quite unimpressive (my god, you've had time to watch eight films, but not time to write any of them up? For shame.)


So, these are going to have to be brief in order that I may reestablish some order.


First up, The Crying Game. This was a bit of a spur of the moment, borrowed housemates DVD choice when a DVD of House Of Flying Daggers didn't work. Or didn't work to my liking. Only every third line was subtitled. That just ain't cricket in my book.

I didn't mind it. Fergus (Stephen Rea) is an IRA volunteer who is part of a kidnapping team who take out British soldier Jody (Forest Whitaker), giving the Brits three days to release some political prisoners or else Jody gets it. Of course, that all goes to shit. As they're about to kill him, the Brits strike the IRA camp, Jody escapes, but isn't so lucky on the road. Fergus hightails it to London to get away from all that was, and upholds a promise made to Jody that he'd find his lover Dil (Jaye Davidson) and tell Dil how much she meant to Jody. Fergus, of course, falls for Dil, but Dil isn't all that she seems. And to make matters worse, the IRA chaps who were bossing young Fergus around, led by Jude (Miranda Richardson), track him down and force him to try and do nasty things to a judge. Of course, this all goes to shit too. It all really goes to shit again and again. Lots of things, going to shit.


I watched it almost a week ago, and I've got to say that it was enjoyable enough, but it hasn't made that much of an impact on me. Rea was fine, though I didn't think there was anything spectacular there. Whitaker I never really believed as a Brit. Richardson was probably the best of them, though Davidson did do a striking job as Dil (Jaye is male - I'm referring to Dil as female because that is the gender identity through the film), earning himself a Best Supporting Actor nom in the process. It was his first role, and he's done pretty much nothing since, so what a way to make yourself known. Jim Broadbent pops up in supporting, doing his normal fine work.


Director Neil Jordan does a fine job, and the fashion, of the fashion. It's a 1992 film so you can imagine what it looked like. Retro fabulous.


All in all, though, I'm giving this one 3 stars. Maybe at the time I would have been more amenable to lauding it, but not today.

Are You Mad At Me?

I'm putting it out there, and I'm not ashamed: I have a crush on Hayden Christensen, and I have since Life As A House. There, I said it. I even watched the second Star Wars film because he was in it (though I couldn't bring myself to sit through the third. Please forgive me, Hayden.) I also think that he does have some acting chops (see Life As A House again) but I think often he doesn't put them to as full a use as he could. That's fine - many better actors do the same (good morning Robert De Niro.)

(he's writing down my phone number. I swear it.)

So, I watched Shattered Glass. Deal. It also has Peter Sarsgaard in a Golden Globe nominated role, and Chloë Sevigny, who is another I love. Though, and no disrespect intended, who the hell is Billy Ray? The director of the film is a bit of a mystery to me.

Shattered Glass is apparently the true story of one Stephen Glass, a young reporter and, subsequently, associate editor of The New Republic, a highly-regarded American journal that, at the time the film is set, was suffering from rapidly declining readership, despite the fact that it was the 'inflight magazine of Air Force One.' Glass (Christensen) is precocious and an incredible story-teller - he seems able to get the most amazing stories, pitch them in a very entertaining way, and them write them very well, all the while whilst being a very nice guy to all those at his workplace, no matter how overworked he may have been. The only problem is - was he making them up?

Hank Azaria plays his very good initial editor Michael Kelly, who is fired and replaced by Glass' colleague Chuck Lane (Sarsgaard.) The story that creates the whirlwind of forgery accusations revolves around a hacker's conference and a very young hacker who seems to have signed a major contract with a tech firm that he hacked in order that they may police their security better. Forbes Digital journalist Adam Penenberg (Steve Zahn) begins to investigate, as this is exactly the sort of story they would like to run with, and begins to find massive inconsistencies in the story - and this is where the story goes.

It's a pretty lightweight film, but entertaining enough. Sarsgaard does an excellent job, but I do wonder why more attention wasn't given to Christensen, who seemed to pull through his freaky happiness and utter despair with a constant look of fear hovering somewhere in the background of his eyes. He was never quite trustworthy, no matter how well he sold his credentials and stories, and that isn't an easy feat to pull off.

Oh well, I don't think this is the last we've seen of Christensen (I bloody well hope not, at least.) Bring on some more drama though, boy. You can do it, you've shown it. Push yourself.

Shattered Glass: 3 stars.

Together We Will Live Forever.

Darren Aronofsky had a bit of a bad time with his third film, The Fountain. Initially, he had a US$75mil budget and Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in the lead roles, but when Pitt left the project shortly before principal photography was due to begin, the project was scrapped for a couple of years. US$20mil or so had already been spent creating sets and props in Queensland, and many of these were auctioned off. The film was then reimagined with less than half the budget and with Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz taking on the leads.

The films takes place over a thousand years, ultimately about the search for eternal life, specifically the Tree of Life from the bible, hidden away after Adam and Eve were expelled from the Garden of Eden. Tom Creo (Jackman) occurs in three different eras - back in the days of the Spanish Inquisition, sent on a search for the tree at the behest of the Queen (chronogically, Weisz's first character also); in 2005, part of a research team to try and slow the development of brain tumours (with Weisz as his wife); and far in the future, as the protector of the tree of life, drifting through space to a dying star in order to save it.

Weisz as Issi, Tom's wife in the 2005 time period, has a brain tumour also, which is untreatable. This storyline is the primary narrative force, with Tom ignoring other progresses in his work (such as neurological regression, effectively reversing the aging process) in a desperate attempt to find a cure for his wife. It is a race against time, intercut with segments from the initial quest for the tree and the subsequent attempt to take it to the stars. However, the search for eternal life, as offered by the tree, is shown to be somewhat fruitless. Not in the sense that the tree doesn't hold those powers, but that in struggling so hard to discover these secrets, Tom actually misses so much of the life that he is meant to be living - pointed out abstractly by his superior at the research facility Dr Lillian Guzetti (Ellen Burstyn - how I love her.) He misses the opportunity to spend time with his dying wife (who is, incidentally, writing the story of the search for the tree and its raising to the heavens) because he is so focused on trying to cure her, and to make her live forever. Indeed, the Mayan/Spanish section of the story has a similar ending - the quest for eternal life in fact brings quite the opposite for so many.

It is a very, very bold undertaking from Aronofsky. Coming off Pi and Requiem for a Dream, he did away with so many elements that had hitherto defined him (though not quite managing to do away with the repeated short cuts and closeups! Not quite!) as he attempted to reimagine the sci-fi genre. It only succeeded to a limited degree, though definite props for the scope, vision and idea behind it.

Jackman... I just think he looks too young for a film where he has to carry emotion through centuries. His face doesn't have the ability to look wizened or craggy. At the end, he still looks young and innocent, and I felt like he should have been so, so much more tired. He does put in a valiant effort, though I think Pitt would have suited it better. Weisz (who I honestly think looks alternately like Kate Winslet and Keira Knightley in everything I see her in) does a very good job as the wife battling cancer who is resigned and content with her fate to die, and channels Natalie Portman in the Star Wars prequels (vomit) as the Spanish queen. The supporting cast is solid (did I mention that Ellen Burstyn is in it? And how I love her? I did? Well, you can't bring her up too often), the film does look a treat (though some of the Mayan sets seem a little false...) and Clint Mansell does another astonishing job with the score. It just didn't quite gel the way I think it was aiming. It's not a write-off, not by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm going to give it 3 stars.

I Swear I Didn't See Anything...

Is it just me, or is Peter Weir one of the greatest directors ever to walk the face of the earth, ever? The number of times I have gone into his films expecting to be disappointed only to be amazed. Similar to Jane Campion, I guess, though I think Peter Weir brings home the better bacon time and time again. The Truman Show - didn't think I'd really rate it, but did in a big way. Master And Commander - expected crap, but was noisily impressed.

He seems to pull in people you may not expect greatness from (Jim Carrey springs to mind, and I liked Russell Crowe much more than I think I ever have in his Weir turn) and then make them brilliant. And films that might otherwise sound a bit naff, he turns them around and creates cinematic masterpieces from. From Gallipoli (has a closing frame ever been so impacting?) to Dead Poets Society to Picnic At Hanging Rock to his latest, Master And Commander. He's a man of not too many films but quite a lot of brilliance.

Witness, interestingly, received much awards attention, but isn't by any means my favourite of his films. I don't know what would be my favourite (there are a few that come to mind, but I couldn't choose between them), but it definitely wouldn't be this one. And I don't really understand the praise heaped on Harrison Ford for his role as Detective John Book. He just looked like Harrison Ford doing pretty much what Harrison Ford does (can I say Harrison Ford again this post? Yes. Harrison Ford.)

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it was a bad film. I thought it was a good film. I just didn't think it was a great film.

The film centres around the murder of an undercover narcotics officer witnessed by a young Amish lad, Samuel (played by Lukas Haas - another child actor grown up good) whilst he is en route with his mother to visit his aunt. Harrison Ford (there we are again. Harrison Ford.) plays the aforementioned Det. Book, assigned to investigate the murder. It quickly turns out that this murder goes to the top, involved much corruption, and means that Samuel, his mother and Book are all in danger of losing their lives. Naturally, they retire to an Amish community to hide. Hilarity of course ensues as Book tries to fit in as Amish, despite the fact that the world he comes from is entirely different. The inevitable love story between Book and Samuel's mother Rachel (Kelly McGillis) swims along nicely despite all obstacles standing in their ways (like the fact that Book isn't, in fact Amish, carries a gun and swears a fair bit.) It all plays very nice and Hollywood.

I think that's my primary issue with this film when compared to Weir's other films. His others do conform to a lot of Hollywood necessities, but they always manage to go above and beyond them at the same time to create something a little different, a little special. Witness didn't really seem to achieve that. It played to me like a fish out of water romantic drama. Yes, it was acted well, even by Ford - roles like this fit him like a glove - and it looked nice, but it just didn't stand out. I feel that in five years time I'll remember that I've seen it but very little else.

It was fun to play 'spot Viggo Mortensen' in his first film role. And it was an otherwise enjoyable film. 3 stars. I'm looking forward to Weir's next film The Way Back, with Colin Farrell and Saoirse Ronan. Very interested to see it when it (hopefully) releases next year.