S1m0ne (Andrew Niccol, 2002)

Before I watched this film, all I knew was that it featured Al Pacino in the role of a director who creates a computer-generated actress. That short premise intrigued me − it sounded like it would be some sort of science fiction film but with Al Pacino, which would be an unusual pairing.

Tangled (Nathan Greno and Byron Howard, 2010)

It’s interesting to see how Disney films have evolved over the years. This film was visibly a more modern production when compared to older classic Disney films such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. The most noticeable difference is seen in the animation, which I really liked. It was more three-dimensional and the textures were more realistic (although I found Rapunzel's huge eyes distracting). Obviously, one of the major parts of the animation was of Rapunzel’s hair, which I believe had a separate animation team solely dedicated to it. Her thick and flowing is one of the main features of this film, given that this is a story about Rapunzel.

Hail Mary (Jean-Luc Godard, 1985)

What could I expect in this film? Jean-Luc Godard taking on the story of the Virgin Mary in a modern era. It was typical Godard style - more gazing then advancing the story (speaking of, there wasn’t really a complex plot) and some female nudity of course. It was a shame I didn’t find the story as engaging as it could have been given that the religious story was transposed into a contemporary setting. (And also a shame that the DVD I was watching was a little scratched so I missed some of the last half hour). It was about a teenage girl, that plays basketball, who falls pregnant having never been intimate with a man. She had a boyfriend who of course finds this hard to accept but they marry and she has the baby. The film was actually banned in some European countries and the USA, as well as condemned by the Pope − so you know that Godard was pushing the envelope on this one.

2/5

Annapolis (Justin Lin, 2006)

After watching (and loving Pineapple Express), I made note to watch this film, which also stars the talented James Franco. I was glad I did because Annapolis turned out to be more enjoyable than I thought. There was good drama and I found it to be a really engaging movie.

The story is quite familiar: a young man is trying to pursue his dream against all odds: in this case, it’s Jake Huard (Franco) who has his heart set on attending the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. Huard works at a shipyard, building vessels for the Navy, working for his father, who doesn’t seem to have faith in his son (we find out Huard’s mother died). Anyway, Huard’s application is successful but life is not so smooth in the academy − there is plenty of tension and frustration, and Huard even considers quitting (though he returns to prove his father wrong). One of his roommates attempts suicide, which prompts Huard to punch one of the officers, almost getting him expelled. But one thing I can’t really comprehend is how a fellow student gets kicked out for lying, and Huard punched lieutenant and isn’t immediately expelled from the academy.

Anyway, the main focus of the later half of the film is Huard entering a boxing tournament at the academy. Though no one really seems to believe in him, Huard shows admirable determination and I though the training montage featuring Huard was great. I couldn’t look away during the boxing scene, which I thought was really well done. It made me think that Huard might have had a good career as a boxer if he left the academy. Nevertheless, Huard actually loses the final match but the film ends on a realistic and positive note.

What I like about this film is it has a number of elements: drama, action, there is a clash of personalities, a love interest for Huard, and the expected clash with authority. Overall, Annapolis was well-worth seeing, with a good story and a strong skilful portrayal from the versatile James Franco.

4/5

Les Carabiniers (The Riflemen) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1963)

I was curious to see how Godard was going to depict war in one of the first films he made. And not surprisingly, it depicted the real ugly side of war, as if playing on the mainstream audience’s love of action and war films.

The film is about two men who receive letters, delivered by soldiers from the King, to enlist in war, promised they will be rich afterward. They return with postcards (as Michelangelo calls them “deeds”), and seem to be under the impression that they will inherit these monuments, etc (while I had thought they brought the postcards in defeat and realising they weren’t going to get the real treasures) − so that was clever on the part of Godard. Also, another thing to note, was that I couldn’t really get where they were − they seemed to have Swiss-like crosses on their hats, etc but I thought the Swiss were neutral and it seemed like they were fighting in Mexico at one point? So I was confused but I actually don’t think Godard wanted to depict a particular place or time (or war). I think it was more of the general idea of war he wanted to examine.

Amélie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2001)

A sweet film, an absolute classic. This was my second time seeing it I think but it has continued to resonate in my mind since years ago when I first saw it. Such a unique story, weird, yet sad but happy too. At the end, I was happy with the film’s ending but it makes my own world seem so plain and almost tragic. It’s so extraordinary how I feel like I relate to Amélie but at the same time, I am not like her. Those innocent emotions − I know how that feels. And of course, Nino isn’t so bad − a good choice of actor I must say. It’s amazing how films like this can put a spin on the unusual/slightly odd and make them so endearing. And I like the subtle, touching humour too. The first time I saw it, the film made quite an impression on me. Funny how I couldn’t recall the storyline before I watched it again this time − I just remembered something about a phone booth and train station (which was kind of haunting).

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part II) (David Yates, 2011)

An epic finale to one of my favourite film franchises. As the final Harry Potter film in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part II) had great expectations to fulfill. Ultimately, it looks like it has lived up to the hype, and in the process, captivated audiences worldwide who will no doubt be sad to see this magical world leave our screens.

Right from the opening scene, this film was very dark − it seems to me like each Harry Potter film was getting progressively darker. So while many of the people watching this film would have grown up together with the characters, I wouldn’t recommend Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part II) to younger, newer audiences. When I think back to the first film, it was much lighter − these young witches and wizards on the train to Hogwarts, where we see them do some magic and we see them in their various classes. Now it’s all about life or death − Harry’s friends are dying and we have emotional visits from loved ones already gone (and to the point where I actually started to tear up while the lady next to me in the cinema was crying!). For the last two films, we don’t see Harry, Hermoine and Ron attend any classes − they are no longer studying and their mission is now purely to defeat Voldemort. However, it was good to see some lighter moments, often in the form of passing remarks made by characters in the film, which helped break up the tension.

This film also focuses more on the character of Severus Snape, who up until now had been a fairly black-and-white almost two-dimensional stereotypical antagonist. But this time around, another layer of Snape is revealed and we see he is a much more complex character. Even as someone who has read all the books (a number of years ago), my memory of the films is stronger and so having watching all the previous movies lately, I also got sucked into the impression that we knew all there was to be known about Snape. So I guess, like Harry, I learn more about his character and it is quite touching to find out that there is essentially a love story at heart here, Snape’s undying love for Harry’s mother, Lilly. This film seems to illustrate that there is no longer plain good or bad people − the boundaries can be quite blurred. I don’t if it was just me but even Voldemort seemed to be on the verge of empathy at one point in this film − it was like he was rethinking his plan to kill Harry.

Anyway, there was also a lot more action and special effects in this film. While earlier films used effects largely for magic, like for the Whomping Willow or flying car, in this film, special effects are used for the major fighting scenes between the Death Eaters and the students and teachers at Hogwarts. These action scenes actually reminded me of Lord of the Rings − particularly with the types of creatures (like trolls) that featured in the battle, as well as the fact that they were trying to infiltrate the castle.

Also, I have to mention the ending as I was really curious as to how it would be portrayed in the film, if it would be portrayed at all. So as in the book, the film then jumps 19 years in the future. I personally found the final scene amusing as it just seemed really unrealistic. I’m not referring to the plot but the way the characters looked. I think I was expecting to see different actors play the grown-up versions of Harry, etc. Instead, we saw the same actors but with some extra stubble for the boys and more mature hairstyles for the girls. For me, there was hardly any difference between their appearance in the rest of the film and when they 19 years older. This struck me as strange and I guess it undercut the poignancy of the final scene for me.

Nonetheless, it’s sad that this franchise has finally ended − over the eight films we’ve seen these young characters grow into interesting individuals with their own distinctive personality traits. We’ve seen both dark times and light moments − happiness, fear, bravery, death, friendship and love. It’s one big magical adventure that is sure to remain one of my favourite film franchises.

5/5

Reservoir Dogs (Quentin Tarantino, 1992)

A great, refreshing film. Yes, at times it was a little unsettling but it’s a really well put together film and proof of Tarantino’s incredible talent and unique style.

Apart from the great cast of people like Harvey Keitel (who is also co-producer), Steve Buscemi and even a cameo by Quentin Tarantino (who wrote and directed the film), the first thing that sticks out in this film is the way it’s structured. Ultimately, it’s a story about a group of criminals who, after a diamond heist goes wrong, suspect they have a “rat” in their group who alerted police beforehand. However, the film doesn’t unfold in this chronological order, in fact, we never see the actual diamond heist.

Get Him to the Greek (Nicholas Stoller, 2010)

If it wasn’t for Russell Brand, this film would definitely not have been as entertaining. Not that I’m saying it was a fantastically hilarious film, because unfortunately, it wasn’t − but the film is pretty much carried by Brand’s presence.

I’m a fan of Russell Brand’s humour and wit, and that’s what drew me to Get Him to the Greek in the first place. However, his brand (no pun intended) of clever and articulate off-the-cuff comedy is not really able to be utilised in a medium like film, where spontaneous natural humour is replaced with scripted and rehearsed lines. Nevertheless, his vivid personality still shone through in this film and he seemed an easy fit for his character: British rock star Aldous Snow.

The film is about record company intern Aaron Green, who is given the task to bring Aldous Snow to the Greek Theatre in Los Angeles in time for his scheduled performance there. Obviously, escorting the rock star from London to the States turns out to be no easy feat and Green has to make his way through a mine field of drugs, parties and other obstacles.

I hadn’t seen Forgetting Sarah Marshall before watching Get Him to the Greek but I’m not surprised to see this spin-off film − Brand’s personality is big enough for its own film. On the other hand, Jonah Hill, who I’ve seen playing the lead in other films like Superbad (which I’m not a real fan of), seemed to almost fade from the spotlight in comparison to Brand’s character. I was surprised to see Rose Byrne play the character she did: Jackie Q, Aldous’ troubled ex-girlfriend. After seeing her in dramas and films like Troy, it’s interesting to see her take a more comedic route. (And of course, her role in Bridesmaids is further proof of her comedic capabilities). Meanwhile, I found Sean Combs (or P. Diddy)'s role quite off-putting − I’m not a fan of his character or performance in the film, so fortunately it wasn’t a major part.

So while there were some entertaining moments in this film, there were equally awkward moments, such as the threesome near the end of the film − that was quite random. Anyway, the film has it’s happy ending, although you get the feeling the characters haven’t really progressed much since the beginning of the film − it’s all just one big Brand show for the film’s audience.

3/5

The Proposal (Ann Fletcher, 2009)

Judging from the trailers I had seen for this film, it was going to fit right within Sandra Bullock’s oeuvre of romantic comedies. Now I like Bullock − I think she’s a great fit for these type of roles but unfortunately, it’s a genre that doesn’t see a lot of variation or originality.

The different approach that this film tries to take revolves around the fact that a female character “proposes” to a male character, instead of the usual ‘boys asks girl’ scenario. However, as we see, this “proposal” for marriage is for entirely different purposes. Bullock plays Margaret, an editor of a publishing company and after finding out that she is about to be deported back to Canada because of an expired visa, she pressures her assistant, Andrew Paxton (played by Ryan Reynolds), to marry her so she can stay in the country.

From the start of The Proposal, we see that Margaret and Andrew are two very different, seemingly incompatible people. Bullock’s character surprised me with her coldness and her attitude towards her assistant, almost reminiscent of Meryl Streep’s character in The Devil Wears Prada. (On a sidenote, why are editors always portrayed this way − none of the editors I know are anything like this!)

Anyway, not surprisingly, as Margaret gets to know Andrew and his family, we see the attraction grow between them. There are a few unusual scenes, such as when Margaret and Andrew bump into each other in the bedroom, both naked. But I suspect this scene was just an excuse to provide some extra visual interest for admirers of Bullock and Reynolds! I found some of the events at the end of the film a little strange − while the resolution wasn’t itself entirely unexpected, the way the film reaches that conclusion is quite weird. Also, on this note, I have to mention Betty White, who plays Andrew’s grandmother, or “Gammy”, as she is referred to in the film. White’s presence in this film becomes more significant towards the end. Anyway, although a little jarring at times, I give the film credit for trying to approach what is quite an exhausted genre in a different way. And it always helps having Bullock around too.

3/5

City of Angels (Brad Silberling, 1998)

Well, for something that started out as a sweet film, this one ended powerfully and completely shifted gear. I actually expected Meg Ryan to play an angel in this film but turns out Nicolas Cage was (on second thought, I only saw male angels, which is strange). As the title suggests, City of Angels is about an angel, and the decision he has to make between living as a human or continuing to live as an immortal angel after he falls in love with Meg Ryan’s character, Maggie, who is a heart surgeon. So one of those films about making a huge life choice and sacrificing something for love. Obviously this type of romantic drama is right within Meg Ryan’s domain so I was interested to see how Cage would fare in this genre (recently, I’ve just seen him in so many action films). And I’m glad to saw Cage really held up well − he is a versatile actor and I don’t think people give him enough credit.

Lennon Naked (Edmund Coulthard, 2010)

With an almost resurgence of popularity in The Beatles recently, I’m not surprised at the number of films made about some aspect of the Fab Four. I enjoyed In His Life, which focused on John Lennon’s upbringing and I was also similarly interested in this film, which is about John’s later life.

The film begins with Lennon being led by Brian Epstein to meet his father, who he hadn’t seen for 17 years. Then the story continues, centering on some quite emotional and dramatic − although perhaps also lesser known − moments of John Lennon’s life, such as Brian Epstein’s death, splitting from wife Cynthia and eloping with Yoko Ono and the breaking up of the band are the main ones.

As always, I was intrigued by actors who play famous personalities, such as The Beatles − there’s certainly a lot of pressure and big shoes to fill. But Christopher Eccleston did a great job, as did Yoko and the other Fab Four actors.

It was a strange film (and I mean that in a positive way) because it often represented Lennon in a negative light, or perhaps more realistically, which was far from this idyllic image we have of him today. The film depicts him as a man who often seems to quickly flip from a light-hearted attitude to a intensely, almost aggressive character, with disregard for other people’s feelings. But it’s not that simple and Lennon’s childhood, particularly the decision he had to make when choosing between his mother and father, seems to have greatly affected his behaviour and actions during his adulthood.

On the surface, as a Beatle fan, I enjoyed this film, but I also appreciated the many new and unknown layers the film sought to reveal about the seemingly well-known man, John Lennon.

4/5

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Gavin Hood, 2009)

I think the X-Men films are one of the better comic book film franchises. X-Men may not be as well known as Superman or Spiderman but the interesting storylines and strong ensemble of characters really does engage the audience. I guess X-Men Origins: Wolverine is an exception to that last point about an ensemble of characters, as this film essentially revolves around Wolverine. But then again, Hugh Jackman’s great performance as Wolverine/Logan was always a highlight of the X-Men films, which most likely led to this prequel being developed in the first place.

This film nicely fills in the gaps and backstory of the character Logan, who eventually becomes Wolverine. I haven’t seen all the X-Men films but this film really highlights how complex Wolverine’s history is and really does help you understand how he becomes the character he is in the other films. This film begins with Logan as a mutant child and introduces what becomes a very challenging and troubled relationship with his half-brother (who is played by Liev Schreiber). Also, I found it amusing to see Will.i.Am in this film (as a teleporting mutant) and good to see Australian actress Asher Keddie get a part in this blockbuster (most Australians would know her from the local TV series Offspring).

So with a glimpse into his childhood, we then see how Wolverine grew up and the lifestyle he had, happily married to a schoolteacher. Of course, you can sense the trouble coming as not everything is what is seems to be. There’s a lot of violence and betrayal as the different characters try to establish their identities and relationships with one another. I think X-Men Origins: Wolverine has good material to work with and is able to build on a solid plot. But there’s enough action sequences to keep the energy of the film alive and of course, Hugh Jackman’s immersion into the character is the reason why this man is Wolverine.

4/5

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (Rob Marshall, 2011)

Given that this is the fourth film in the hugely successful franchise, many people were doubting there was any spark left. Although I’m a big fan of the Pirates franchise, I have to admit that even the third film was starting to push the limits. However, I’m glad to say that I found this film entertaining and actually better than the third film.

Many people have commented that a reason why this film was good was because it had a decent plot, which revolves around reaching the Fountain of Youth. I actually think all four films had a pretty good plot line, although, I don’t know if it’s just me but I’ve always found them really quite complex compared to most mainstream blockbuster films, and sometimes hard to follow − i.e. figuring out what each of the characters is after (like in the third film, for instance). Actually, I find it impressive that these Pirates films even have such plots, given that they are based on a Disney theme park attraction.

An interesting thing I’ve noticed with these Pirates films is the way they depict stereotypes or iconic things. For instance, this fourth film features the notorious pirate “Blackbeard”. Rather than steering clear of this well-known figure, Disney made an effort to involve him in the plot of the film. In addition, you’ve also got the Fountain of Youth − another mythical object that can be risky to try to represent in a film. People have different ideas of what this Fountain might be like and it could easily disappoint or challenge previous representations that the audience may be expecting or familiar with. There are so many different stories about this Fountain and what it does, so it’s either a lot of research to try and get the most common idea of this Fountain of Youth from popular culture and literature, or it’s about going with a particular representation/story of it and using it in the film. On the other hand, this process of getting the two chalices and mermaid tear, etc, seems to be an original addition. 

And of course, then you have the complete destruction of such a popular representation of mermaids − the Pirates films have mermaids like you’ve never seen them before! Also, I have to mention the stereotype of pirates because I’ve found that as an audience, when you finally think you’re warming up to Captain Jack Sparrow and empathising with him, he suddenly does something really selfish or surprising that momentarily repels you and reminds you that he is really just a deceitful, nasty pirate. It’s quite curious the way stereotypes are played on, and at times manipulated, in this film.

While talking about characters I have to mention the absence of both Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley − two actors that had been in the three previous films. It might have been a risky move but actually for me, it was a good idea as honestly the two characters they portrayed were starting to frustrate me. Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) was ok in the first film but after that, I was really feeling like she was a superfluous part of the film − the character became really weak and just didn’t really have a part to play in the Pirates franchise I believe. Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) also was starting to become a little unnecessary. I guess ultimately, I’m saying that Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow was always the main focus in the films and I believe that it was Depp’s fantastic performance in this role that really boosted the popularity of this franchise.

So on the other hand, the fourth film saw the return of Geoffrey Rush as Captain Hector Barbossa. It’s interesting to see how characters change over the four films − between “good” and “evil” − the roles are quite fluid. Also, it was great to see Keith Richards make a brief appearance once again as Jack Sparrow − it’s always entertaining, given that Depp has based his pirate performance on the Rolling Stones artist. Also, Judi Dench and Gemma Ward have roles in this film, so clearly the opportunity to be a part of this franchise really appeals, and to a range of actors too. Obviously, I also have to mention the addition of Penélope Cruz as Jack’s ex-girlfriend. It’s an interesting relationship and you never really know who has the power or who is deceiving who. I found the ending a little strange and it definitely could have been resolved better but then again, if the rumours are true, than it could all be explained in Pirates 5 (or even 6!). And if that ships sets sail again, you can be sure I’ll be there to watch.

4/5

Top 6 movies to see in 2011

Well, it’s another exciting year of movies – so far we’ve seen a range of films hit our screens, including Thor, Tron: Legacy, Your Highness, Scream 4, Rango, Paul, Rio, Arthur and World Invasion: Battle LA. Although it’s already May, there is still plenty to look forward to in 2011.

The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (Stephan Elliott, 1994)

A classic Australian film. Watching The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert made me quite nostalgic and brought back memories of Australian films from the 1980s and 1990s. Priscilla is one of those films that has an original formula which works: it’s entertaining, quirky, touching and clever. To have all of those elements in a film is a rare and difficult achievement.

The film features some great Australian talents, who have now made their name on the world stage, particularly Hugo Weaving and Guy Pearce. I loved both of their characters, who both had quite different outlooks on life and personalities. Priscilla is essentially a road trip movie − it centres on three drag queens who travel across the Australian desert to do a show in Alice Springs. The show is organised by the wife of one of the drag queens, “Mizti” (Hugo Weaving), which makes relations between the characters a lot more complex and interesting. In addition, Mizti and his wife also have a child and I think what this film does really well is highlight the complicated nature of human relationships. Sexuality is not clear-cut as we have a drag queen who is married with a child, as well as heterosexual transsexual. We see Hugo Weaving’s character is reluctant to have his son see him performing but is relieved when his son surprisingly shows an active interest in what his father does, even requested a performance of ABBA. In other instances, we see the drag queens abused both verbally and physically in some of the more conservative country towns. So rather than stereotyping, the film brings these more non-mainstream themes of sexuality, identity and acceptance to the mainstream audience in a more light-hearted way. So while you may not expect it, the film really does have some substance. The movie touches on some big issues, and instead of being a one-dimensional comedy flick, it also has some quite poignant moments, including Hugo Weaving’s character struggling with his role as a father, to a more disturbing flashback of one of the characters with his paedophile uncle.

I should also point out there was some controversy about the racist and sexist stereotyping of Cynthia, who is a Filipino wife in the film. Personally, I saw her character solely as a comical role in the film, and for a film that aims to strive away from sexual stereotypes, to be accused of racial stereotypes is quite ironic I guess. If anything, I would say the film stereotypes Australians − the scenes in outback pubs with heavy-drinking, crude and intolerant men (and rough, muscled women) is enough to put anyone off travelling in the desert! Although, the beautiful landscape is enough to convince me otherwise.

Also, the fashion and costumes in the film were incredible − not surprisingly, Priscilla won an Oscar for Best Costume Design. The costumes could easily be the inspiration for Lady Gaga’s clothes − a dress made from thongs, bright, colourful “out there” numbers simply looking to draw attention. My favourite moments were when these characters were all glammed up, whether it was in a silver outfit, sitting in a giant stiletto on the top of the tour bus, dressed in costumes made from flowers while singing with Aboriginals, or on stage dressed as the Sydney Opera House.

At the beginning of the film, three things struck me immediately: the raw language and swearing, the Australian accent (a rarity in films) and the music, which consisted of a range of famous pop songs from various decades. From the start, you can feel that this is going to be a film that is very different from most of what you have seen before. Sprinkled with comedy as well as more dramatic moments, this is a film that appeals (or not) to people in different ways. Nevertheless, I think it’s worthwhile watching what is an iconic movie that helped bring Australian film to the world stage.

4/5

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (Mike Newell, 2010)

I had fond memories of the Prince of Persia game as a kid − well, mostly of watching my dad playing the game. Even so, I wasn’t as enthusiastic about this film but am glad to say it was better than I expected.

I wasn’t familiar with the plot, which centre on a magical dagger that has time-travel abilities. Prince Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal) reluctantly teams up with Princess Tamina (leader of a country the Persians invade at the start of the film, played by Gemma Arterton), in order to stop the powerful dagger from getting into the wrong hands. As a result, Prince of Persia is a mix of fantasy, science fiction elements and of course, some sword-fighting action.

I enjoyed the film more than I thought I would and once I learned that Jerry Bruckheimer (who worked on the Pirates of the Caribbean films) was one of the producers, I wasn’t that surprised. Similarly to the Pirates of the Caribbean films, there were themes of betrayal, loyalty, magical and otherworldly devices, and good old fashioned sword-fighting. Prince of Persia also had some humorous moments, which I wasn’t expecting. Actually, in Pirates of the Caribbean, Captain Jack Sparrow and Elizabeth also reluctantly work together at first − so I guess these Disney films have even more in common than I first thought.

Anyway, I also really liked the set design and the beautiful Persian locations depicted in the film. I wasn’t really a big fan of Jake Gyllenhaal as I hadn’t seen many of his films but I think he really suited the character of Prince Dastan (and not to mention, looked quite appealing in the role of a rugged, heroic prince!). So while fans of the Prince of Persia video games would probably want to see the film for nostalgic reasons or just pure curiosity, I would recommend the film for anyone who likes films involving sorcery and swords or ancient cultures, and definitely fans of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

4/5

The Social Network (David Fincher, 2010)

When I first heard they were making a film about Facebook, I thought it was a joke. Once the film was released, I still wasn’t very interested in it but I ended up watching it purely because I’m a cinephile and I like to be open to a range of films and not only watching ones I like.

I think what gives The Social Network its appeal is the life of Mark Zuckerberg − his very unusual life as a college student/billionaire. While most students would just be focused on studying and other everyday aspects of college life, Zuckerberg had his mind and efforts focused on a business venture − not without its personal, financial and legal complications. The film is cleverly structured to try and hold the audience’s interest while ultimately just retelling a few years of the life of this individual. This is done by cutting between the two lawsuits he is involved in, and the chronological development of Facebook.

It is the interesting life of Zuckerberg or the overall plot that was the best quality of the film for me as I wasn’t able to connect with the characters, especially Zuckerberg, who I found a little repelling and insensitive. If I had to choose a favourite character or one that I empathised with most it would be co-founder Eduardo Saverin. I don’t know if it’s some sort of 'nerd' stereotype of if the film depicts a real reflection of Zuckerberg’s personality (although Mark Zuckerberg himself has said it isn’t). Ironically, you get the impression that despite creating this groundbreaking website that connects millions of people around the world, Zuckerberg is actually quite a lonely, isolated person. Then again, I wouldn’t take everything in this film as face value because it is not all factually accurate.

I found Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) a particularly annoying character, sort of like the sneaky stranger you see in films, who ends up breaking a solid friendship. I found it ironic that Justin Timberlake portrays someone from Napster, given that no doubt people would have used Napster to illegally download Timberlake’s music. But also, the film gives the impression that Parker is a founder of Napster, when he actually isn’t − nor is he a founder of Facebook. (Also, on a sidenote, I found it amusing to see Brenda Song star in a film that is so different from those light-hearted, comedic children's Disney TV shows she is a part of − I can't help but associate her with those films!)

While I see the appeal of The Social Network, I personally didn’t really find it that remarkable or worthy of any Academy Awards − although maybe for the script, which was based on a book (as I said, it is a skilful way to construct what is essentially a retelling of a few years of someone’s life). The music, on the other hand, was so eerie and dark, it would’ve suited a horror and at times the music seemed to drown out the dialogue (and I don’t just mean in the club scenes). It was an interesting choice to have Nine Inch Nail musicians scoring the film − that would explain the darker edge to it. But I almost found it really grating and almost insulting to have one of my favourite Beatles songs, “Baby, You’re a Rich Man”, playing during the end credits of this film − and at the same time, it was sort of undoing or mocking the seriousness and drama exuded throughout the rest of the film. Anyway, yes, Facebook is a significant idea and development that has dramatically changed the way many people (including me) connect around the world but this film was just nowhere near as noteworthy to me.

3.5/5

Katyń (Andrzej Wajda, 2007)

This film attracted a lot of attention, particularly in Poland, and given my Polish background, the film had a more significant and personal connection with me.

The title of the film refers to the mass executions of officers and public servants by the Soviet secret police in 1940. The Soviets denied responsibility for the massacre until 1990, when it formally acknowledged the ordered killings and cover-up that had ensued. The “secret” nature of the massacre forms a significant part of the way the event is portrayed in the film.

Unlike for instance, Life is Beautiful, a film set during the Holocaust, which really tugs on the heartstrings, Katyń seems like a colder, more distanced portrayal of another of the war’s horrors. It feels more like the film is focusing on the political situation of the time, as a way of trying to come to grips with the event, as well as be able to give Poland’s uncensored account of what was (and perhaps still is) one of the lesser-known yet one of the most significant mass tragedies to have taken place during the Second World War, to the rest of the world watching through the medium of cinema.

The film, directed by celebrated Polish director Andrzej Wajda, features a few personal stories entwined with each other but I think it is more about reflecting the general state and sentiment of the country at the time − the confusion, the cover-ups, the propaganda and just the unknown. So, I feel as if, sympathy and emotion take a back seat in the film, which is more about showing people the situation Poland was facing, physically, emotionally and politically. It’s a country struggling between two forces, trying to find the lesser of two evils: the Germans and the Soviets. On the one hand, you have Nazis and Auschwitz, and on the other side of the country (literally), the Soviets are undertaking a secretive massacre in the Katyn forest. It’s just incomprehensible to me − and I usually feel like this whenever I watch something about historical tragedies and events that I, thankfully, did not have to live through but through my heritage, feel connected to. Years ago when I first heard about the Katyn massacre from my parents, I had trouble believing it. It was hard enough to come to terms with the Holocaust, and to hear of more large-scale secret mass killings of Polish people by another country, just blew my mind.

I knew this review would have a more personal touch but it’s quite unavoidable, and watching films like these will unfortunately have this effect on me, and on many others I’m sure. But it’s through telling peoples’ stories and reflecting on them that can help create wider discussion and education and hopefully, leave some mark for future generations to remember and try to avoid repeating.



4/5

Chaplin (Richard Attenborough, 1992)

The first thing I noticed as soon as the opening credits for this film appeared was the high calibre of the cast. Obviously you have Robert Downey Jr playing the lead role of Charlie Chaplin (his Academy Award nomination for this film was definitely deserved), as well as Anthony Hopkins, Dan Aykroyd, Marisa Tomei, Milla Jovovich and Geraldine Chaplin, who is in actual fact, Charlie Chaplin’s daughter, playing his mother in the film.

It would be no simple task to condense the incredible life of Chaplin into one film, so I was curious to see how this one would pan out. We see a few what moments of Chaplin’s early life, such as scenes with his mother, who is later taken to an asylum. The film focuses on Charlie’s personal life − of course, at some points we see how it sometimes took a backseat to his busy career − but his relationships with women, as well as America, are really put under the spotlight. The film portrays Chaplin as a decent, humble, good-natured individual who gets quite swamped with attention and fame. As a result, he does seem to live quite an isolated life, in a way, which is manifested through his affairs and four marriages.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the film, and found the cinematography quite creative and fitting. For instance, when Chaplin is trying to escape with his film reels, the footage speeds up as him and his group comically pop their heads around the corner and then speed away − using techniques seen in Chaplin’s films themselves.

Given that Chaplin is based on a biography and autobiography, and the fact that his daughter is involved in the film, I’d like to think this film is a truthful and accurate account of his life. Regardless, it is an endearing, enjoyable film, which brings to life the comic legend that is Charlie Chaplin.

4/5

La Terra Trema (Luchino Visconti, 1948)

Well, after having seen quite a few neorealist films within quite a short time, I’m not surprised that I was intuitively expecting a sad/more natural non-resolved ending. And that is what I got.

La Terra Trema (The Earth Trembles) centres on the Valestro family in Sicily, where Antonio, a fisherman sick of working for someone else, revolts against the wholesalers, prompting his family to mortgage the house in order to buy oars, nets, etc. However, after what first seems a prosperous night catching barrels of anchovies, Antonio and his brother and some of the other family members go to sea in a storm and come back with a damaged boat, having lost everything. Thus, the spiral of misery ensues, as the older brother leaves (to try and get a job somewhere else), the grandfather goes to hospital and the family begins to be shunned by the others in the village. 

It’s a film about pride and your place in the world. Antonio wanted to set an example and although that is admirable, after he loses everything he isn’t willing to swallow his pride and return to the same job working under the very same people he revolted against − until the end that is. The film ends with Antonio and his two younger brother going out with the crew on a boat − no real conclusion but reflecting how life really is − full of ups and downs and cycles, not always happy endings. Some of the characters in the film, including Antonio and his sister, talk about marriage and we can see how in those times, in different cultures, love was not enough to marry. It’s kind of sad but the images speak truth. We do in fact see those moments of banality or just when the camera lingers for a while longer but all in all it is a very realistic film. It becomes more engaging as the film progresses and you begin to empathise with the characters, joining them on their journey, where everyone is a spectator in life.

Here is the opening of the film:

3/5

8 ½ (Federico Fellini, 1963)

Wow, what an interesting/weird film (and I mean that in a good way). Initially I didn’t know what the film was about but it all sort of fell into place by the end. (From the music in the DVD menu, I got the sense that this is a sort of circus atmosphere, like Fellini’s La Strada, which I also really enjoyed). Actually, there was fantastic music throughout with a few well known classical pieces that really got the drama going. 

So anyway, I thought there would be some neorealist elements to this film but I was wrong. I mean, there were some hand-held camera shots in the fantastic opening sequence in the car (when he’s trapped in the car, with people in surrounding cars frozen and watching him almost like they’re watching a film, before Guido goes flying up into the sky). But overall the film is definitely a departure from neorealism − I would say it is closer to surrealism at times. It is definitely a fictional, imaginative piece, however, it felt like a documentary at times and it’s interesting how Fellini manages this. I felt there were also so many similarities to Godard, especially how the camera and voiceover narrated some of the parts. The film also makes reference to cinema itself, particularly when the producer is speaking to Guido and talks about the “ambiguous reality” of cinema and how it is “50 years behind the other arts”. I think the film suggests something about the nature of memories and film itself − art itself.

Also, I just have to mention, the main character, a director named Guido (played by Marcello Mastroianni) − well, I was quite struck by this handsome actor. He reminded me of George Clooney cross Robert Downey Jnr cross Johnny Depp (now that’s a compliment). He was so stylish and suave like a James Bond character, and at one point when he is looking at a girl, the music stops and we know this guy is at the top of his game. And it wasn’t until after the film I research his filmography and surprise, surprise he was in Visconti’s Le notti bianche − another great film. He played a similar role too, as a kind of womaniser, although I liked him more in this film.

The whole movie is like a dream, as they describe it on the DVD cover, “a shimmering dream, a circus and a magic act”. It definitely was. I now see how the working title for this film fits in: “The Beautiful Confusion”. So weird yet intriguing, the whole film was like a hallucination. I didn’t understand every moment but that’s ok. There was no real plot, it was about a director who is making a film but doesn’t have any ideas and the film is filled with his memories, flashbacks and dreams, sort of fuelling his inspiration. There is a scene when he is with a harem of girls (who are all the cast in the film, as well as his wife, Luisa) and flashbacks to his childhood (taking a bath, dancing with the woman Saraghina, who the Catholic priests tell him is a “devil woman”). It all makes for melodramatic film unlike anything I could’ve expected. There were lots of pans and very quick, sort of clumsy sharp close-ups (although I imagine there were purposely done in that way).

One of the first scenes, when everyone is at this large outdoor gathering, lining up and drinking water − well it all makes sense now because at the time I was not sure what was happening but clearly it was the cast and crew (this gathering is also echoed in the final sequence when everyone is lined up holding hands in a circle around what looks like a circus ring, next to the spaceship prop). This final scene actually features the music from the DVD menu that I mentioned above, the circus music, perhaps suggesting whether this all was just a dream. In any case, it makes you think twice about the nature of reality in a truly unreal way.

4/5

The Silence of the Lambs (Jonathan Demme, 1993)

Now this is the type of film I’m talking about when I mean a great thriller film. Combining horror, crime and bit of psychology, The Silence of the Lambs was one of those enthralling thrillers (which seem to be increasingly rare) and it’s no surprise that it won five Academy Awards. Now I’m looking forward to watching Hannibal and Red Dragon (the sequel and prequel), though naturally, I’m not expecting them to be as good as the original film.
 

The notorious character of Dr Hannibal Lecter was really what made this film so appealing, as well as the performance by Jodie Foster. Foster plays Clarice Starling, a trainee FBI agent who seeks the help of Hannibal, an imprisoned cannibal, to find the serial killer known as “Buffalo Bill”. Hannibal, who is played brilliantly by Anthony Hopkins, is a complex, intelligent psychiatrist himself and thus, he makes the interactions between him and Starling quite challenging and mentally exhausting for her. But, interestingly, a kind of relationship forms between them − sort of mutual trust and respect. This aspect of the multifaceted personality of Hannibal is what intrigues me about him. Compared to most other serial killers depicted in films, he seems almost sane − well, until he takes a bite out of one of the policemen’s faces − then once again he repels you.

Foster’s portrayal of the FBI trainee was also really good to watch. She was determined to be a strong, female force in the agency but there were times, particularly when she was with Hannibal, where glimpses of her weaknesses shone through. She is, in effect, like one of the young, delicate lambs in the slaughterhouse she saw as a child − an experience which she recounts to Hannibal (despite being told not to discuss her personal life with patients).

Anyway, I also have to mention the ending, which I thought was a great, refreshing way to conclude a film like this − Hannibal remains on the loose and even calls up Starling, telling her is “about to have an old friend for dinner”. Nice.

4.5/5

2011 Oscar Winners

So sadly, another Academy Awards ceremony has come to an end. Both The King's Speech and Inception were the biggest winners on the night, each taking home four Oscars. however, The King's Speech won in the main categories, such as Best Film, Best Director, Best Actor, as well as Original Screenplay and Sound Editing.

Here is a list of all the winners:

Splice (Vincenzo Natali, 2009)

 

Woah, now this was a disturbing film in so many ways. I was curious to see it because it was about genetic modification, which I have always been interested in, although this film didn’t leave me with the impression I was hoping for.

The plot is simple enough: two scientists (Elsa and Clive, played by Adrien Brody) who are experimenting with splicing animal genes, one day add human DNA (which Elsa later reveals was hers) and secretly create Dren, a freaky human-like creature with wings and a stinger. Instead of killing the creature, they raise it, risking their jobs (at the conveniently-named company called “N.E.R.D”) and perhaps their lives at the same time, all in the name of science. I thought that was dedication, until I saw what happened later in the film.

Elsa immediately has a strong almost-motherly connection with Dren, who she clothes in a dress and treats as if she were her own child, though Clive (who is also her boyfriend) is not so welcoming (by trying to drown her, and in the process, discovering that she can actually breathe underwater as well). But as Dren grows up (which due to her genetic make-up, happens more rapidly), she gets closer to Clive, who much to the audience’s disgust, also starts feeling attracted to the creature and they end up having sex. If that isn’t disturbing enough, Clive’s girlfriend, Elsa, walks in on them − it’s one of the most extremely awkward and repulsive scenes I’ve ever seen in a film!

They two scientists are keeping Dren at a farmhouse and one day return to see her seemingly dead, so they bury her. Then in keeping with the horror element of Splice, Dren suddenly returns and attacks some of the other suspicious scientists who had discovered what Clive and Elsa were doing. What ensues is a chase to kill Dren, who we find out has transformed into a male. Earlier in the film, we see two slug-like creatures that Clive and Elsa created, kill each other after the female one turns into a male (and kills the other male one). So we realise Dren has the same gene and is now a male. Then, horror turns back to disgust as the male Dren goes after Elsa and ends up having sex with her and killing Clive. But the film manages to go one further and at the end we see Elsa making a deal and will receive money in exchange for being part of the next stage of the secret experiment: it’s revealed that Elsa is pregnant.

And with that, I was left with a real sour taste in my mouth. What I expected to be one of the “usual” sci-fi thrillers that Hollywood produces turned out to contain some of the most disturbing moments I have ever seen in a film. But the question I think about most is what compelled Academy-award winner Adrien Brody, (star of one of my favourite films, The Pianist) to act in Splice?

2.5/5

Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

When I first saw the trailer for this film, it didn’t really appeal to me. I mean, seeing the scenes with the actors floating in the corridor and the sky folding upside down made it seem like some sort of disaster movie or strange sci-fi. However, it was after I read about Inception and starting hearing about it from other people that I became interested and realised that the trailer was quite misleading (for me anyway). It was the whole exploring-the-nature-of-dreams theme that really caught my attention.

Leonardo Di Caprio plays Dom Cobb, a thief who is part of a team who illegally enter people’s dreams in order to extract information they may be holding subconsciously or to incept an idea. I found the fact that an idea planted in someone’s mind may “grow” to have such impact on a person throughout their life was really exaggerated. I mean, sure, I might wake up and ponder some strange ideas I had in my dreams but the fact that someone like Fischer may change his whole attitude and actions during the rest of his life due to one dream seems really unlikely. I think the impact Cobb’s wife, Mallorie (Marion Cottilard), had on her husband was probably the closest the film came to being a “thriller”. She was a bizarre, frightening character but at the same time was illustrating that mystifying concept of the difficulty in making the distinction between reality and dreams.

Anyway, I particularly like the fact that Ellen Page plays an architect who helps design the dream they enter. It reminds me of when I design something in the world of my lucid dreams. But in a film that is so science-fiction and complex, I found myself thinking about certain issues or potential obstacles that would arise in such a world and which may have been considered in the scriptwriting process. For instance, how would people awake from the dreams? Director Christopher Nolan, who wrote the script, put in the idea of a “kick” that would awake the individual. Interestingly, it is not the impact of a person falling that wakes them, for instance, but it is the moment before the impact, when the body is jerked awake. However, I couldn’t accept that heavily-sedated individuals (even having ingested other “special” chemicals) would wake with a “kick” in the same way − to me you’re either sedated or you’re not.

Another issue, which has been pointed out by dream researchers, is the fact that the dreams depicted in Inception were quite unrealistic, in the way that they were so well-connected and logical. As probably most people have experienced, dreams are often made up of several surreal, incoherent, illogical scenes or moments. Obviously the plot (or lack of) in such a film would have been hard to follow, so it’s no surprise the dreams were constructed in this way.

Anyway, the biggest potential flaw with this dream inception process is how it would work with those who lucid dream. In the film, when people realised they were dreaming, most of the time their surroundings would start to crumble or suddenly change in some way as their brain makes this realisation. I’ve read a bit about consciousness in dreams and usually, as soon as someone realises they’re dreaming, they suddenly awake. However, as a person who lucid dreams, I am able to continue sleeping and maintain an awareness to the extent that I can start “controlling” my dream. So I just find it difficult to picture how people could incept a lucid dreamer because they would remain aware and have more control over what would happen.

It was actually Nolan’s experience of lucid dreaming as a teenager that led him to think about the story for this film. So I like the fact that the story stems from a personal experience of the director, and is really a topic that many people are interested in and curious about. I like the basic concept of the film and no doubt is a springboard for discussion about dreams. Actually, it’s common that after reading or thinking about dreams before going to bed can affect one’s dream − so I’m hoping to have some real interesting multilayer dreams tonight!

It was very clever though not surprising to have Nolan cut the final scene with the top still spinning (so we can’t be sure whether Cobb is still dreaming or not when he is reunited with his children). Although many people seem to be frustrated at the ending, it honestly doesn’t bother me that much − while I think the top looked like it was about to drop (and therefore it is real), I doubt that Cobb would have been “kicked” back into reality in time underwater. But the fact that Cobb is reunited with his children (whether in reality or not) is closure enough for me.

So overall, I found Inception quite engaging and original, which is a quality I really admire in value, and which I think is becoming quite rare in modern films. With echoes of the highly successful The Matrix and the mysterious topic of dreams, it’s easy to see the appeal of this film.

4/5

Unstoppable (Tony Scott, 2010)

I hadn’t actually heard of this film until someone I know told me they had gone to watch it. That surprised me because I would categorise this film in the same vein as other action films about runaway vehicles, like Speed (although that had a different premise), so I think it could find a similar audience too.

But the thing that I think would interest the audience most − and is what drew me in − is the fact it is based on a true story. It’s about two men who try to stop an unmanned freight train that is travelling out of control towards a city and carrying hazardous materials. It’s a simple-enough plot and it’s no surprise that the train will be stopped at the end of the film. Nevertheless, this is an engaging, thrilling film that I would probably describe as a “quintessential Hollywood” film − basic plot and characters combined with maximum cinematic effects, which works to get the audience on the edge of their seats.

One of the ways this film sought to increase the drama and suspense was through Scott’s interesting camerawork. I say “interesting” but it’s probably a little too distracting for me. There were frequent quick zoom ins and some moments felt like you were watching a handheld camera − it was like a mix of raw documentary, first-hand feel with epic Hollywood cinematography.

Anyway, the formula works for Unstoppable − it was what I was expecting from it, as a satisfying action flick. There were moments when I was questioning some of the decisions made by the characters, such as how another train would be able to slow down the runaway one by travelling in front of it, and why they abandoned the idea to drive alongside the train and have someone jump into the front carriage (which they almost did earlier in the film). So there are some plot holes, but then again, I’m not an expert in the field and some incidents from the true story were exaggerated (such as Denzel Washington’s character running across the top of the train carriages). But I think if you can suspend your disbelief and just enjoy the ride (no pun intended!), then you’ll also find some suspense and thrill.

4/5

Natural Born Killers (Oliver Stone, 1994)

Wow. What an incredible film − I honestly wasn’t expecting it to be this good. I was originally drawn to this film after hearing Robert Downey Jr was in it, although he doesn’t appear until about mid-way throughout the film − and by then I had almost entirely forgotten about him as the film was so engaging and intriguing.

The film is about Mickey (Woody Harrelson) and Mallory (Juliette Lewis), two serial killers who attract the nation’s attention and are almost glorified by the media. I wasn’t surprised that the story was by Quentin Tarantino − the violent nature of this film fits right within his style. However, another reason why I like this film is that is looks at society’s obsession with violence, and how people seem to be becoming desensitised to a point where Mickey and Mallory are almost celebrated as heroes. I think the film also touches on the idea of how individuals become violent − is it really in their blood (as Mickey says), or is it their upbringing (in which case, are young people are at a greater risk, being exposed to more violence in today’s society?).

There is definitely a deeper message within this film, which also depicts the media’s sensationalist coverage of such issues and events. This was mainly done through Robert Downey Jr’s entertaining character Wayne Gale, who much to my amusement, is an Australian journalist who hosts a tabloid show called American Maniacs, and by the end has also changed his outlook and behaviour, sympathising with the killers (before he is shot by them). I have to praise Downey’s Australian accent, which surprised me (as I was not aware he was going to be an Australian character) and was actually well done (it felt a little exaggerated but I think that was because it was so different compared to his American accent, which I was expecting instead!). Now having seen Tropic Thunder and Natural Born Killers, it’s clear Downey can do an Aussie accent well.

What really struck me in this film was the original and creative camera work and editing. From the opening sequence of the film, where Mallory and Mickey kill people at a diner, I was drawn to this film.




On a sidenote, I also found the scene in the drugstore amusing − the fact that they can go and help themselves to snakebite antidotes on the store’s shelves was just so strange. I also loved the scene where a flashback to Mallory’s origins is presented as some sort of old-fashioned TV sitcom portraying a normal family − and we find out Mallory’s upbringing is anything but normal and happy. It’s disturbing and surreal but I was glued to the screen.

Anyway, this sort of thing happens throughout the film − trivial, happy music plays at moments when the murders are killing their victims, really adding to the psychotic nature of this film. That’s what I really admired about this film − it played with conventions and stereotypes, both in content (exploring the attitude towards serial killers), as well as in construction. It played with the typical dramatic and romance conventions, as this really was, in some warped way, a film about two lovers. Their love and dedication is admirable despite the fact they are the most wanted murders. As Mickey says at one point in the film: “Doesn’t anyone in Hollywood believe in kissing anymore?” It’s ways like this that the film plays with your mind − Mickey is presented as some sort of personification of the devil but at the same time, you can’t help but admire some of his sentimental qualities. The use of black and white footage, animation sequences, and rapid intercutting of psychedelic footage with the main frames of the film (such as when they’re driving a car, or what is seen outside the windows or doors), were some of the other techniques that I also really found fascinating.

Lastly, this film had a fantastic soundtrack, with artists such as Leonard Cohen, Peter Gabriel, a lot of heavy rock, as well as 1960s rock ‘n’ roll, perfectly complementing this great film. Visually engaging and matched with an awesome soundtrack − whether you like it or not, Natural Born Killers will have an impact on you.

4.5/5

Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky, 2010)

I can’t remember the last time I felt this way during a movie − a combination of admiration and revulsion. This film is so complex and amazing but at the same made me feel so uneasy and on edge the whole time.

Natalie Portman plays Nina, a ballet dancer who gets the lead role in a production of Swan Lake. That may be the main gist of the plot in the film but there is so much more going on, psychologically. Nina’s role involves playing a white swan and the more evil, black swan and it is these two dynamic opposites that seemed to be referenced throughout the film. The white and black swans come to represent parts of Natalie’s personality as she grows into the roles she is playing and becomes more in touch with her darker side.

At first I was reminded of the film Centre Stage, which also looks at the life of teenage ballet dancers. However, very quickly I realised that Black Swan was a huge step in another direction. This film portrays ballet in its raw and painful state, rather than the typical glamourised final version we see on stage. The actual ballet routines actually made up a small part of the film − instead we see more of the behind-the-scenes preparation and the pain that comes with being a ballerina, that honestly make me glad that I didn’t choose that path. Despite this crude depiction of ballet, it was a beautiful film and so artistic, just like the dance itself. So I guess in this way, it could be seen as a more real and honest depiction of the art of ballet.

The film was an incredible mix of drama, horror and a bit of romance, as well as some sexual energy, especially between Lily (Mila Kunis) and Nina. Despite having seen plenty of films with violent scenes of people being shot or killed, I found this film was more chilling and graphic, and was actually more disturbing. For instance, Nina ripping the skin off her fingers, or the rash on her back from scratching, her bloody toes, as well as the scene when Winona Ryder’s character stabs her face with a nail file. They were just horrific and poignant moments and I especially like the ending.

The most intriguing thing about this film is you never really know what’s real and what’s part of Nina’s visions. One thing I know for sure is that Black Swan has demonstrated that there are still amazing, original films being made that can enthral audiences and critics alike. I don't know if I'll be watching this film anytime soon because of the effect it has on me but Portman’s performance in this film was fantastic, not surprisingly. I admire her dedication to the role, having trained ballet months before to prepare. She has always been a favourite actress of mine and no doubt it is time for her to take home an Academy Award for her talent.

4/5

2011 Oscar Nominations

The Academy has just announced the nominations for this year's Oscars - an interesting mix of films and individuals.

Here are the nominations for the main categories:

Best Motion Picture of the Year
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Javier Bardem for Biutiful
Jeff Bridges for True Grit
Jesse Eisenberg for The Social Network
Colin Firth for The King's Speech
James Franco for 127 Hours

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right
Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole
Jennifer Lawrence for Winter's Bone
Natalie Portman for Black Swan
Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Christian Bale for The Fighter
John Hawkes for Winter's Bone
Jeremy Renner for The Town
Mark Ruffalo for The Kids Are All Right
Geoffrey Rush for The King's Speech

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Amy Adams for The Fighter
Helena Bonham Carter for The King's Speech
Melissa Leo for The Fighter
Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit
Jacki Weaver for Animal Kingdom

Best Achievement in Directing
Darren Aronofsky for Black Swa
Ethan Coen, Joel Coen for True Grit
David Fincher for The Social Network
Tom Hooper for The King's Speech
David O. Russell for The Fighter


So who is going to take home the coveted golden statue?

Easy A (Will Gluck, 2010)

I’m not really a huge fan of teenage comedies so I didn’t have high expectations for this film. Nevertheless, I was pleasantly surprised.

I rolled my eyes at the plot (of course, being a teenage film, it has to revolve around virginity, it seems). Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) lies to her friend that she slept with a guy, and it’s overheard by Marianne, a zealous Christian classmate (played by Amanda Bynes). Problem is, Marianne spreads the rumour around the school, and then of course, Olive develops a reputation as a tramp, sleeping around with every guy. In what is probably a more unusual twist, Olive actually embraces the attention and fuels these rumours but then things start getting difficult for her. Through in a few subplots and you’ve got yourself the basis of this film. Interestingly, the film is narrated as a web cam confession, where Olive is telling her side of the story and guiding the audience through the story’s events.

What I like about Easy A is that there are a plenty of one-liners and clever dialogue − I describe it as a sort of Juno-esque film. And I also found it clever that it ties in with the novel The Scarlett Letter, which Olive happens to be studying at school. One of my favourite scenes was this one:

It’s not a particularly eventful montage but one that sets up the running gag throughout the film with Natasha Bedingfield’s “Pocketful of Sunshine”. (There is also some other good music in the film, from artists like The Pussycat Dolls).

On the other hand, there are some really strange characters, such as Olive’s parents − I would love to meet parents who are actually like that, as well as a guidance counsellor with an interesting story of her own (played by Lisa Kudrow). Also, I found some of the scenes in the film very artificial and hard to believe. I’m young enough to remember my highschool experience and either the film portrays a distinctly American highschool experience, or reality is being slightly exaggerated. For instance, the fact Olive can suddenly just be best friends with Marianne, or that she can be best friends with such a seemingly opposite person, or even that Todd is somehow unconvinced by the rumours the rest of the school believes (ah, the power of love). I get that this isn’t a serious film and these instances may be serving as sarcastic instances meant to parody teenagers but to me, they seem like conveniently placed events that serve to advance the plot (and more than the usual degree of “convenience” I expect in film storylines).

Anyway, the film touches on many other teenage themes, like body image and self-esteem, friendship, loyalty and love. I like when one of the teachers talks about Facebook and how rumours can spread online, and sometimes even the mundane nature of social networks, which I found amusing. It’s actually a pretty clever way of getting a message through to teenagers about problems with online gossip.

When I heard that this film had received a Golden Globe nomination (Emma Stone for Best Actress), I’m sure I wasn’t the only person left bewildered − “Are teenage comedies like this supposed to win awards, especially when they’re competing with those more ‘serious’ drama films?” I think that’s probably a common attitude to award shows like the Golden Globes and the Oscars, an attitude which has been enforced over the years. I mean, we didn’t see anyone from American Pie winning an Academy Award, for instance? However, though there were a few unusual nominations (in my opinion), after watching this film, I wholeheartedly endorsed the nomination for Emma Stone. It was Stone’s character that really drove this film and without the performance she gave, I think the film would not have been as effective.

Yes, there were cringe-worthy moments and stereotypes, and what I feel were unrealistic situations, yet in the context of this film and with an entertaining talent like Emma Stone, these flaws were forgiven.

3.5/5

Anne Hathaway as Catwoman

Warner Bros. have announced that Anne Hathaway will play Selina Kyle (a.k.a Catwoman) in the upcoming Batman film, The Dark Knight Rises.

Christopher Nolan will be directing the film, which will also see the return of Christian Bale as Batman, as well as the addition of Tom Hardy, who is set to play Bane (a character who hasn't appeared in the Batman films since Batman & Robin in 1997.

Other stars signed up for The Dark Knight Rises include Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine.

The film is scheduled to be released in Australia on July 19, 2012 and in the USA and UK a day later.

Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010)

I must admit a gasp of horror came from my mouth when I found out there was going to be a third Toy Story film. Haven’t enough classics been revisited by the hungry Hollywood machine? Nevertheless, I was one of the millions of people pleasantly surprised by what is a pretty decent film.

One of the main obstacles that would’ve faced the scriptwriters was the character of Andy. Over the first two movies we saw him grow up but in this one there is no denying that Andy, who is now leaving for college, no longer plays with Woody, Buzz Lightyear and all his childhood toys. Apart from Woody, whom Andy intended to take with him, the other toys were mistakenly donated to local childcare, Sunnyside (instead of taken to the attic). What appears as a nirvana for toys soon becomes hell and Andy’s toys try to escape.

Each of the subsequent Toy Story films are freshened up with the addition of new characters − this third film was no different. The main new characters thrown into the mix this time include a revengeful and abandoned purple teddy bear, a toy baby and a Ken doll, who provides plenty of entertainment. Ken’s romance with Barbie provides a comic/dramatic subplot and some of the most amusing scenes (such as when Ken is modelling clothes for Barbie):



Then of course, there are the old favourites: Woody, Buzz, Jessie, Slinky, Rex, Mr & Mrs Potato Head, etc. It’s also good to hear the familiar voices of Tom Hanks and Tim Allen, who the film would definitely not be the same without, plus there is also Joan Cusack as Jessie and Michael Keaton as Ken. Another thing I like about Toy Story is their end credits − their either bloopers or in this case, an epilogue showing the toys’ new lives.

The beauty of Toy Story is that audiences of all ages can relate to it. There are many familiar faces and personalities of the toys, which I’m sure most people have felt attached to at some point in their life. There are also a lot of clever gags set up along the way and unlike a lot of other animations being released nowadays, it seems to be a well thought-out film with attention to detail and effort put in to keep the viewer engaged. The action is quick and there is something happened in every scene. Also, what really surprised me, was the emotional impact of some of the scenes. I know it is just a fictional story about talking toys but it somehow manages to connect with the audience at a deeper level in some parts of the film, such as the flashback to when Lotso was lost by Daisy or near the end, when the toys believe they are about to be burnt alive.

So overall, it was worth seeing the third instalment of one of the most popular animations ever made though of course, for me nothing will beat the first film of the series. I think, just like Andy, director Lee Unkrich we should finally say goodbye to this fond franchise − it’s a nice bit of nostalgia but now it’s time to grow up and put the toys away.

4/5