Feels Reel...

The Artist (Michel Hazanavicius, 2011)

2012-03-03T21:31:00.000+11:00

Sweet, beautiful and surprisingly touching, Academy-Award winning film The Artist has rightly enchanted audiences and critics worldwide and become a darling of the film season. Like most people, I was curious to see how a silent film would be made in 2011. Although there seems to be so much nostalgia in the cinema industry at the moment, this film pushes the boundaries and challenges the current 3D blockbuster fad by going to the extreme length of recreating this historical style of filmmaking.

At the beginning, George Valentin (played by the fantastic Jean Dujardin) comes across as a charismatic and charming personality but by the end of the film you see a real depth to his character. I was surprised at how poignant some moments of this film were – from a light-hearted and theatrical feel at the beginning to some truly moving scenes, the film showcased a range of emotions. As for the actors, both Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo (who plays the delightful Peppy Miller) do a wonderful job at what is a difficult and unusual role for modern actors to take on. And of course, Uggie, the now famous little dog also plays an amusing – and at one point, significant – role in the film.

As a silent film, The Artist makes you focus more on other elements, such as the actors' expressions. As a result, the facial gestures and body language may appear almost exaggerated, however, when you account for the absence of dialogue you very soon become accustomed to this style of acting. As the audience, your attention becomes drawn to the energetic and spirited faces and you find yourself smiling and frowning along with the characters. The silence also makes you notice the way the film has been beautifully created by director Michel Hazanavicius. The detail to the craft of the film can be seen from the shots and framing to the opening title and intertitles. In fact, The Artist fits in with the classic films of the silent era so well that if it wasn't for the high quality and crisp images, you would think you were watching a 1920s film. It was in no way overdone or exaggerated and while it may be perceived as some audiences as a novelty, the film really reveals the director’s dedication to and knowledge of the silent film style.

Another way the film stands apart from those made in the silent era is the way it references and engages with the wider context of the film. I really like George Valentin’s dream sequence in particular, which highlights the tension present between the silent and “talkies” eras. Valentin begins to hear the sounds and atmosphere of the environment around him but is unable to talk, no matter how much he tries. The whole film itself could be seen as symbolising its own context, with Valentin representing the talent and tradition of the silent film era, while Peppy Miller is the fresh, young and pretty modern star. The film sees the gradual demise of the silent film until it is resurrected with a combination of these two worlds (culminating in the wonderful dance sequence at the end). In effect, it is what The Artist is also doing – bringing back nostalgia in a contemporary time. Speaking of the ending, I love how sound is inserted in the film – it is a very clever way of modernising the film and making it relate more to its context. In fact, there was a lot about this film that I loved – the acting, the framing and editing, the script and eve the setting (the costumes, the cars and just the 1920s in general!). The Artist is far from being a novelty act – it really is the work of an artist.

4.5/5

2012 Academy Award winners

2012-02-27T16:00:00.002+11:00

After shaking things up last year with an attempt to draw in a younger audience through hosts Anne Hathaway and James Franco, the Academy Awards returned to the tried-and-true master of ceremony in 2012 - Billy Crystal.

Crystal's hosting was what we expected - quite safe, a little cheeky but nothing controversial or surprising. But that wasn't the only predictable element - there were also no real surprising winners this year, with all the favourites taking home the coveted Oscar trophy.

Nevertheless, it was an entertaining night that showcased some of the most significant individuals and collaborations in cinema today. Many worthy winners, some amusing speeches and a great performance by Cirque du Soleil later, the Academy Awards demonstrated why it is still the most prestigious and exciting event in the entertainment industry.

The 2012 Academy Award winners:

Best cinematography
Robert Richardson, Hugo

Best art direction
Hugo

Best costume design
The Artist

Best make up
The Iron Lady

Best foreign language film
A Separation

Best actress in a supporting role
Octavia Spencer, The Help

Best film editing
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Best sound editing
Hugo

Best sound mixing
Hugo

Best documentary feature
Undefeated

Best animated film
Rango

Best visual effects
Hugo

Best actor in a supporting role
Christopher Plummer, Beginners

Best original score
Ludovic Bource, The Artist

Best song
Man or Muppet, The Muppets

Best adapted screenplay
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, and Jim Rash, The Descendants

Best original screenplay
Woody Allen, Midnight in Paris

Best live action short
The Shore

Best documentary short
Saving Face

Best animated short
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr Morris Lessmore

Best director
Michel Hazavanicius, The Artist

Best actor in a leading role
Jean Dujardin, The Artist

Best actress in a leading role
Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady

Best picture
The Artist

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (Guy Ritchie, 2011)

2012-01-11T21:25:00.001+11:00

It’s rare for a sequel to stand up on its own, compared to the first movie in a series, but Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows does a decent job of it. Once again, Robert Downey Jr shines as the protagonist. The way he walks, the way he talks, and even his facial expressions, Downey is immersed in the character of Sherlock Holmes. I was curious to see whether Rachel McAdams would be in this film, as she didn’t appear in the trailer. In fact, her character wasn’t featured much in the film, and there wasn’t any love interest for Holmes throughout most of the film, which is interesting.

Speaking of characters, Jude Law returns as Watson and has a more important role in this film, which begins from where the first one left off (with Watson and Mary engaged and soon to wed). Though sometimes you get the impression Watson just doesn’t have his heart in it anymore, there are some crucial moments, which prove otherwise − that deep down he really revels in unravelling these mysteries. And although he may frustrate Watson, there is no doubt about the strong, brotherly bond and admiration Sherlock shares with Watson. It is a bond which other characters don’t seem to understand. In the first film, it was Watson’s fiancée, Mary, who was like the third wheel in the Watson-Holmes friendship. In Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows, it is the gypsy Simza, (the main female character in this film), who is not privy to the men’s ‘inside jokes’. In addition, add what can be easily interpreted as sexual tension, and you’ve got yourself a complex friendship! I think the sequel definitely highlights and intentionally encourages the discussion about Holmes’ sexuality which followed the release of the first film. Some of the comments Holmes makes, added to his cross-dressing scenes in the film, make for an intriguing protagonist.

A reason why this film doesn’t outshine the first is the plot. My impression was that there was a lot of effort going into the plot to make sure there was some content to build the film around (so audiences don’t have the feeling that the sequel is just being rushed out, with barely enough plot to stretch it into a film). However, I found the opposite effect: the plot was a little confusing, particularly at the beginning. There is an devious professor, an anarchist group and a gypsy, as Holmes and Watson end up travelling to places such as France and Germany. I found it quite a contrast to the more subdued and familiar London setting of the first film. In addition, the sequel also had a lot more action − it was loud and flashy with explosions seemingly going off in every other scene. As a result, I found there was less of an emphasis on comedy − I remember the first film had an amusing joke or remark (mostly from Holmes) quite often, whereas the sequel was more serious, with a few jokes thrown in to keep the character of Holmes consistent.

One of the aspects of this film which I liked was the slow motion sequences. The first film had the memorable fighting scene, where Holmes pictures the moves he needs to make in slow motion, in order to knock out his opponent, and then the sequence is played at normal speed and we see him execute his moves. In Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, there were a few of these interesting slow motion sequences. My favourite one takes place in the forest, when Holmes, Watson and Simza are fleeing while being shot at, and we see the bullets and missiles fly past trees, skimming the bark and sending it flying into the air. These types of sequences are the moments when we can marvel at the tricks and effects possible in the world of cinema. So while Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows doesn’t match the fun and spirit of the first film, it is still an enjoyable movie and an interesting take on one of the most well-known literary figures, which is a challenge in itself.

4.5/5

S1m0ne (Andrew Niccol, 2002)

2011-11-11T23:04:00.000+11:00

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.

However, in the first half of the film I realised that I had a different expectation of what this film would be. It was definitely not a science fiction and in fact, the plot seemed very uninspiring. After problems with his lead actress, (played by Winona Ryder), director Viktor Taransky (Al Pacino) ends up being given a computer program which enables him to create a virtual actress. This eliminates the need to pander to any of the demanding and egotistic real life actors he despises and allows him complete control of his leading lady. Taransky creates “Simone”, an attractive yet mysterious actress who captures the attention of the world. Now around this time I was thinking that this was really just in fact a story about an animator − having computerised actors in films is not exactly novel nowadays. (And even at the time this film was made, 2002, computer generation and animation was present in films. As a sidenote, I found it surprising to see the use of a floppy disk in the film − it really highlights the rapid evolution of technology that makes relatively recent films suddenly outdated).

However, this virtual actress becomes much more than a character, as her influence extends the screen. Audiences are fooled by her life-like appearance and Taransky sees no reason to extinguish the attention Simone has gained by admitting she is just a computer program. So we see the film become the comedy it was marketed as, with all sorts of comedic scenes exaggerating the impact of Simone-mania as it sweeps the world and she gains iconic status. As people become more attached to Simone, Taransky digs himself into deeper problems by devising elaborate methods of presenting Simone (telling people she is agoraphobic and her live interviews have to be done remotely, for instance).

At this point, you start to wonder how S1m0ne will end. Effectively Taransky has fooled the world about the existence of Simone and he can either come clean or get away with it. I was anxious to see how the film would end as I personally knew that if his fraud was revealed, the film would leave a sour taste in my mouth.
Anyway, the film was a “deeper” story than I imagined − we see Taransky become obsessed with Simone. As he says to another character, “I made her”, to which they say, “No Viktor, she made you” − a line which I think sums up the concept of this film perfectly. The most shallow part of this film is Simone herself, your typical bottle-blonde plastic starlet. However, I somehow too became enchanted by her eerie yet somehow alluring character (skilfully played by Rachel Roberts).

So while a summary of this film may appear to present a plot this is a little lacklustre, the film certainly draws you in further and reveals its complexities, ultimately, making for entertaining viewing.

3.5/5

Tangled (Nathan Greno and Byron Howard, 2010)

2011-10-29T11:37:00.001+11:00

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.

That brings me to the point of the actual story of the film, which is another way it differs from the more traditional early Disney fairytales. While this film is based on Rapunzel, it is more of an adaptation, as the viewer will notice. Firstly, her magical, glowing has healing properties, making it much more important than in previous versions of the story (i.e. it’s not only just good as a rope!). Also, instead of living alone, the more assertive Rapunzel lives with a witch who uses the magic in Rapunzel’s hair to keep herself young.

One of the other major changes in the story is the fact that the typical ‘prince charming’ character is actually a wanted criminal, who climbs into the tower without the assistance of her hair. I found this last point very unusual − instead of the typical pure, noble prince riding on a white horse to rescue Rapunzel (with the famous “Rapunzel, Rapunzel, let down your hair”), we have a more shady thief who goes by the name of Flynn Rider (and also called Eugene Fitzherbert).

Also, speaking of horses, the white horse in this film starts off as a royal horse, and thus is an more of an enemy of Flynn. Both the horse and Rapunzel’s pet chameleon are the main animals that feature in this film and are the source of the most amusement.

So not surprisingly, given these changes the film was named Tangled, to indicate its departure from the original Rapunzel film. While it took a little while for me to get engaged in the film and I found the musical numbers slightly exhausting, the film was better than I expected it to be. And the ending was quite poignant. Tangled is definitely targeted towards a more modern audience and was an effective contemporary retelling of a well-known fairytale.

3.5/5

Hail Mary (Jean-Luc Godard, 1985)

2011-09-28T20:45:00.000+10:00

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)

2011-09-19T21:59:00.000+10:00

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)

2011-09-01T16:30:00.000+10:00

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.

From this moment, it looked as if the film was showing war as a positive opportunity, where they can come back with all the treasures of the world. I have to say all the characters were very naïve in this sense, and though I thought the men would’ve realised at the end, they were still pestering the other soldiers about their payment, and ultimately get shot by him. As the men go to war, we see the lines: “What do soldiers do before battle?” “Before battle, soldiers are afraid.”

The film was very stuttered, having an almost forced stillness and many artificial conversations. For instance there would be an awkward silence before the camera then cuts to shows the individuals and their reactions, when normally it would all happen instantaneous. Also, an interesting shot that was repeating the narrative, rather than advancing it was when the soldier is asking who the girl rifleman is, and she takes off her helmet − we then see the exchange again after a close-up cut. There were many obvious cuts too, such as when we see a scene, then a millisecond of black (longer than usual) then back to scene but from different perspective.

There was no spoken narration but titles, on chalkboard − maybe that’s what’s written on the postcards we see the girls receiving too. By the way, I’m sure Godard had some extra meanings in mind when he chose the characters’ names: Cleopatra (for the woman they called “mama”) and Venus, as well as Michelangelo − I didn’t get the other guy’s name. At the start of the film when the two riflemen visit, they seem to find Cleopatra attractive (no surprise, with a name like that), and it’s interesting to see her reaction to a postcard of Cleopatra (saying she had better change her name if she comes). So clearly, the isolated family has no idea of what’s going on outside and contrary to the audience’s expectations, she is not named after Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt. Also, I immediately noticed there was no music used except for the opening credits of the film. We see the riflemen singing and hear a record playing (before we see a visual of Cleopatra winding the gramophone). But the only real music was the major scale notes we hear as the men look at the postcards they return with.

One of my favourite scenes is when Michelangelo sees cinema for the first time and closes his eyes watching the Lumiere train clip. Then when there’s the woman in a bath clip, he goes up to projection screen, as if to look down into the bathtub and just can’t seem to comprehend this flat moving image. It really makes me curious as to how it would’ve been like to experience cinema for the first time − or even the first time I watched a film, compared to now. Anyway, an appealing movie with plenty to take from it.

3/5

Amélie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet, 2001)

2011-08-29T19:37:00.001+10:00

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).

That brings me back to the point of the film’s mood, which was pleasant overall I suppose but some scenes − the colour and lighting − were a bit unsettling and that was what made it slightly unreal in every meaning of the word. Amélie is an introverted girl who seeks to make people’s lives better, after accidentally finding a box of childhood memories and successfully returning it to its owner. She comes across Nino, who she develops a fondness for and then when she picks up his lost photo album, she returns it, although not after a well-thought out treasure hunt she devises for Nino, with clues and signs but never meeting face-to-face. In the end, he starts to suspect it’s her and of course, a happily ever after ensues, which I guess does bring some hope. It surprises me how motivational and inspirational one simple little film can be. As well as illustrating the diverse personalities and types of people in the world, this film brings together some clever thinking to show that all it takes is one caring individual to make a big difference in the world.

4.5/5

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

2011-08-08T19:37:00.006+10:00

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)

2011-08-05T16:12:00.004+10:00

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.

The film begins with the criminals having breakfast at a diner (and discussing the meaning of some of Madonna’s songs), ending with a quite amusing conversation about why Steve Buscemi’s character needs to tip the waitress. (He rubs his thumb and finger together and says: “Do you know what this is? It's the world’s smallest violin playing just for the waitresses.”)

The scene cuts and suddenly we see one of the criminals bleeding in car, which is being driven by Harvey Keitel’s character. It’s quite a visual shock − from the light-hearted banter in the diner to this graphic image of a guy who has just been shot and is bleeding heavily from his stomach. Anyway, we find out that the criminals are escaping after their heist, which did not go to plan. The rest of the film reconstructs moments and provides some snapshots into the back story. For instance, we see a few of the characters’ initial meetings with Joe, who is the organiser of the heist. Near the end of the film we also cut back to an entertaining scene when Joe is giving the criminals their names − they are not supposed to get friendly and reveal each others’ names so Joe gives them each a colour name (i.e. Mr Blonde, Mr White, Mr Pink).

Another interesting aspect of this film is the editing and camera work. From an early scene when Steve Buscemi and Harvey Keitel are in a bathroom, you can sense that this film is shot in an original way. That bathroom scene is made up of many long takes, largely as a long shot from outside the bathroom, instead of close-ups. In fact, very few close-ups are used in the film and when they are used, it is in a moment of tension. In these cases, the camera will often focus on a character’s face and emphasise their reaction to something that is happening off screen. It’s quite an unusual and effective way of filming the action and really gives this film another edge, heightening the drama. There are also instances of tracking shots, often from behind a character, as the audience follows in their footsteps.

While the film would largely fit in the crime drama, it doesn’t really have a lot of action, as opposed to many films nowadays (with all their explosions and car crashes, etc). However, the film still manages to be very violent and we see the criminals pull out their guns numerous times (though most of the time, it’s used as a threat). The most unsettling moment though, is when one of the criminals hacks off a policeman’s ear. The audience doesn’t actually see this torture, instead, the camera pans to the left as we see the criminal approach the policeman with a knife. Then the camera shifts back to the screaming policeman and the criminal, who is now holding his ear. It is a creative way of filming the scene, even though it doesn’t make it any less gruesome or easier to watch!

In addition to what are now Tarantino hallmarks (non-linear plots and strong violence), the film is filled with great quotes and one-liners. The characters are also very human and not just two-dimensional vehicles for violence. We have Steve Buscemi’s character, who is like a cunning rat as we see at the end of the film, while Harvey Keitel’s Mr White is quite loyal and even seems to have a conscience after one of the other guys is shot because of him. There is also a good choice of music, largely from the 1970s, which add some sort of more classy feel to these sleek suited criminals.

So while this film is quite violent, for me it feels like a more stylised, or even refined violence. It’s graphic and there is definitely no lack of blood but somehow the film refrains from being a rough and raw sequence of guns and guts. There’s something more at work here and I like it.

4.5/5

Get Him to the Greek (Nicholas Stoller, 2010)

2011-07-31T15:40:00.008+10:00

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)

2011-07-28T14:01:00.002+10:00

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)

2011-07-22T18:54:00.005+10:00

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.

It did begin as a slightly strange, unlikely story. For one, I thought it was almost a parody of The Matrix when we first see the crowd of angels all dressed in black robes standing on the beach during the sunset. Anyway, so Cage plays an angel named Seth (which interestingly was the name of the god of darkness in Egyptian mythology − something which obviously doesn’t fit with his character in this film, so therefore probably irrelevant!) He spends time watching humans, communicating with those who are dying or delusional, or being as he says, “a messenger” (or as he tells Meg Ryan, he is a “messenger of God” − which just completely bewilders her). Seth becomes attracted to Maggie while watching her during surgeries and decides to let her see him (as angels are invisible unless they want to be seen) and they meet in the hospital. After that first encounter, Maggie is clearly falling for him and starts to think about him (angels can read minds). So we see her in the bathtub thinking about Seth, who is meanwhile a few feet away watching her − slightly stalker-ish! They meet a few more times in the library and park and it is clear feelings are developing between them. Though it was slightly strange to see the other angels all gather at the huge library where they meet and who are all watching Seth and Maggie like dark, ominous shadows. Also chilling was when one of the patients says to Seth, “I can’t see you but I know you’re there.” Though fortunately, it turns out to be a former angel, Nathaniel, who actually helps bring Seth and Maggie together.

The encounters between Maggie and Seth really varied. I mean, at one point when she is clearly confused and asking him questions, she says, “Why do you wear the same clothes everyday?” I had to laugh because that was quite a plausible question someone suspicious would be asking. But then a few scenes later, she cuts his hand to see if he bleeds. She saw Seth cut his hand and it there was no sign of a wound but the way she just dug the knife into his hand to test this, she would have had to be 100% sure it wouldn’t bleed. Slapping his face I could understand, but not cutting him! Also weird that she seemed to start believing he might be something else after seeing the photo of him where there is just a flash of light in place of where Seth was sitting − it could have been just a bad photograph! I mean, is that really enough evidence to start doubting herself − I guess, she was really in love and wanted to trust him so she opened her mind to any ideas.

Also, it was unrealistic the fact that Seth chose to observe Maggie and she became the object of his affections after he watched her perform surgery on a patient who dies. And from then on it’s like he is probably neglecting his duties watching other people and spending way too much time with her − but hey, they’re angels so I guess it’s not like he can really get into trouble for that! but one of the scenes I like is when he asks her to describe what the pear she is eating tastes like, in the words of Hemingway (who she had just read).

On a side note, I’ve never been present during a surgical procedure but it struck me a little to see them play music and chat and laugh while operating − I thought it would be quieter and they would be more serious while focusing on saving the patient (who did end up dying). I also didn’t really like how her boyfriend (who seems kind of distant to her), proposes to her in the changeroom − not with a ring but just saying “think about it” − I don’t think it was an appropriate time or place.

I really liked the second half of the film, especially after Seth chooses to be a human. After he falls from the building (which he needed to do to become a human), his character completely changes − one of the nearby construction workers remarks about him taking drugs, which is what is seems like. Definitely not the “wooden” actor some people have described Cage as. But unfortunately, he really chose the wrong time to become a human, as then he has to figure out how to get to the town where Maggie and her boyfriend are supposedly getting married − without using his angel abilities. I actually think he could’ve got the best of both worlds by staying as an angel and just allowing Maggie to see him, while still retaining his “special powers”. In the scene at the library he got to touch her and he wasn’t human − I didn’t quite get that but that would mean, unlike what is said in the film, he wouldn’t need to become human to “feel” things. The part when we see Maggie blissfully riding her bike and glancing at the clouds was just very unsettling. The whole time I was just thinking: “You’re going to get killed”, and not surprisingly, she gets hit by a truck. It was very horrible to watch Seth, who had just sacrificed everything for her, see the one he did it for die. Quite ironic too, that he becomes human and not soon after she crosses to the other side (and as they mention at the start, she can’t become an angel, which could’ve led to a swap in roles where she could instead watch over Seth). Anyway, I thought even Seth could’ve commit suicide in order to see her in heaven but at least we see him at the end of the film, splashing in the waves (I thought he might drown) and seeming to come to terms with his loss and trying to move on and enjoy the simple pleasures of life.

4/5

Lennon Naked (Edmund Coulthard, 2010)

2011-06-19T22:38:00.000+10:00

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)

2011-06-03T23:37:00.000+10:00

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)

2011-05-29T23:44:00.002+10:00

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

2011-05-03T12:50:00.001+10:00

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.

Over at my other blog here, I've made a list of my top six films to check out in 2011.

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

2011-05-02T22:48:00.000+10:00

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)

2011-04-21T14:20:00.013+10:00

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)

2011-04-17T22:50:00.003+10:00

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)

2011-04-07T13:59:00.001+10:00

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)

2011-04-01T11:45:00.000+11:00

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)

2011-03-25T11:00:00.001+11:00

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)

2011-03-10T22:32:00.001+11:00

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)

2011-03-02T19:37:00.003+11:00

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

2011-02-28T16:00:00.004+11:00

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:

Best Motion Picture of the Year
The King's Speech (2010) - Iain Canning, Emile Sherman, Gareth Unwin

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
Colin Firth for The King's Speech (2010)

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
Natalie Portman for Black Swan (2010)

Best Achievement in Directing
Tom Hooper for The King's Speech (2010)

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Song
Toy Story 3 (2010) - Randy Newman("We Belong Together")

Best Achievement in Editing
The Social Network (2010) - Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall

Best Achievement in Visual Effects
Inception (2010) - Chris Corbould, Andrew Lockley, Pete Bebb, Paul J. Franklin

Best Documentary, Features
Inside Job (2010) - Charles Ferguson, Audrey Marrs

Best Short Film, Live Action
God of Love (2010) - Luke Matheny

Best Documentary, Short Subjects
Strangers No More (2010) - Karen Goodman, Kirk Simon

Best Achievement in Costume Design
Alice in Wonderland (2010) - Colleen Atwood

Best Achievement in Makeup
The Wolfman (2010) - Rick Baker, Dave Elsey

Best Achievement in Sound Editing
Inception (2010) - Richard King

Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
Inception (2010) - Lora Hirschberg, Gary Rizzo, Ed Novick

Best Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures, Original Score
The Social Network (2010) - Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
Christian Bale for The Fighter (2010)

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year
In a Better World (2010) - Susanne Bier(Denmark)

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
The King's Speech (2010) - David Seidler

Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material Previously Produced or Published
The Social Network (2010) - Aaron Sorkin

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
Toy Story 3 (2010) - Lee Unkrich

Best Short Film, Animated
The Lost Thing (2010) - Shaun Tan, Andrew Ruhemann

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
Melissa Leo for The Fighter (2010)

Best Achievement in Cinematography
Inception (2010) - Wally Pfister

Best Achievement in Art Direction
Alice in Wonderland (2010) - Robert Stromberg, Karen O'Hara

Splice (Vincenzo Natali, 2009)

2011-02-24T16:29:00.002+11:00

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)

2011-02-16T22:56:00.001+11:00

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)

2011-02-11T22:57:00.000+11:00

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)

2011-01-30T17:12:00.000+11:00

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)

2011-01-27T00:47:00.002+11:00

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

2011-01-26T00:56:00.005+11:00

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)

2011-01-21T22:13:00.001+11:00

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

2011-01-20T11:51:00.000+11:00

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)

2011-01-10T17:34:00.004+11:00

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

Oh, Woe is Me (Hélas pour moi) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1993)

2010-12-21T00:23:00.002+11:00

This felt like a different Godard film - I think the first one I’ve watched that explores the issue of faith and God in such detail. The (minor) plot is about how the spirit of God may have entered the body of Simon (Depardieu) to experience a more carnal love and desire for his wife Rachel. Meanwhile, we see a book publisher arrive to try and investigate whether this happened.

The film features some great lines, clearly hinting at the artificiality of the situation in that they are not people but actors: “We’re not some characters in a novel”, and when Simon and Rachel are talking about break-up, Simon says “we didn’t act out that scene very well… No one bought it. Ask them.“ “we need to redo the scene”. As per usual, Godard comments on the nature of cinema itself: “Cinema language is imperfect” and quotes literary references: “Do not go gently into that good night” (said twice).

It also features some more amusing lines such as, “Did u know the Communist Manifesto was published in the same year as Alice in Wonderland?” and the intertitle: “Thus, gradually the past returns to the present through the imaginary stage of a visual experience which always draws attention”, before we hear a voice-over say “Wild Orgy”, which turns out is the name of a video that we then see, as we discover the voice is coming from a woman in a video rental shop. I can never just get used to the fact of how clever Godard is, and this film just makes me want to see a comedy film by Godard, if he ever has made one. There were some really weird sounds, such as when we hear an American voice-over saying “quit talking and start talking”, which turns out is a pinball machine which the character walks past. There’s also this weird bird noise, as well as what sounds like a French Stephen Hawking type robotic voice-over, which actually made me laugh (as well as consider whether there was a problem with my computer’s sound). Like he does in a lot of his films, the sounds often started before we saw the scene, or sometimes overlapped into the next

Onto the visuals, well the whole film was divided into sections called “books”, they weren’t very clear-cut parts and with the often multiple voice-overs at once (meaning heaps of quick subtitles to read), I didn’t have a lot of time to take in what was being said. I think maybe a dubbed version would be better. Also, I don’t know if it’s a homage to his Swiss background, but on the boat that went past neat the start, it read “italie” yet there was a little Swiss flag attached to its rear. I really liked the long shots, such as Angelique and her boyfriend (?) when the publisher (?) is spying on them from behind a tree − we see them walk past and then the shot lingers there until the spying man finally comes into the foreground. Also, some brilliant shots of Anne, where it starts of as blurry but then slowly she comes into focus as she comes closer. Those were wonderful to watch. Not to mention the amazing use of lighting, sometimes that’s all I was focused on: lights reflecting off book pages, people, etc. A big bonus of this Godard collection (made up of Passion, Prenom:Carmen, Detective and Oh, Woe is Me) is the bonus half-hour feature: “Jean-Luc Godard: a riddle wrapped in an enigma” which I discuss below.

An interesting film, not his best but some of the technical camerawork made up for any confusion in narrative (which it ends up I did comprehend, as I wasn’t sure if I was meant to think there was god in Depardieu?). Turns out that is the general consensus, added to the fact that Depardieu’s name is a play on the word God (“dieu”).

3.5/5

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 1) (David Yates, 2010)

2010-12-06T14:49:00.001+11:00

Many people have praised the latest Harry Potter film as one of the best in the series and I agree. It is quite different from the earlier films, particularly the first. We see less Hogwarts students (and hardly any Hogwarts itself) and more of the wider magical community. Harry, Ron and Hermoine are out in the real world (well, ‘real’ magical world) and on the quest to defeat the darkest wizard, Lord Voldemort.

Another way this film differs is its darkness and violence − there are fewer light-hearted moments and more dramatic, intense, life and death situations. It definitely seems like the Harry Potter series is growing along with its audience. Those early fans of the books and first films are now older and this film caters to the evolving audience.

So most of this film we see the three friends try and track down the Horcruxes in order to destroy Lord Voldemort (actually it’s mainly Harry and Hermoine, as Ron is a bit more temperamental). This group of young wizards has grown and now they’re taking on huge responsibilities. While they pretty much have the future of the wizarding world relying on them to help defeat the Dark Lord, they are quite alone in this film, both physically, as they stay in quite isolated environments, and emotionally, as now with Dumbledore dead, they don’t really have any powerful adults they can trust and who understand their “mission”.

So all these elements combined into a quite entertainment film. Though I was a fan of the books and thus, would have slightly different expectations than someone unfamiliar with them, I found that I had actually forgotten of the details in the later books. So I roughly knew the story but all the same I was surprised and engaged in the story. Definitely one of the best films in the Harry Potter series − looking forward to the final one.

4.5/5

...And They Lived Happily Ever After (Yvan Attal, 2004)

2010-11-20T23:34:00.000+11:00

A great little film. I think the French have perfected the art of making drama/comedy/romance films that have light fluffy moments but are also quite deep and philosophical at times. This film is the perfect example of this. And I guess, also quite common in these types of French films − there is a love scene within the first five minutes of the film! The original French title, Ils se marièrent et eurent beaucoup d'enfants, can be translated as “they married and had many children” − the French equivalent of “they lived happily ever after”, which I guess also highlights the significant role that children and family have in French culture.

This film stars the wonderful Charlotte Gainsbourg, who is just magnetic − there is something about her that draws your attention whenever she is on screen. And of course, I can’t hide the fact that Johnny Depp also has a cameo in this film because if it weren’t for him then I don’t think I would have come across this charming film (which would be a shame).

The film is about the nature of love and marriage as experienced by three different men − one of them sleeps with a different woman every day, another is constantly arguing with his wife who is portrayed as a feminist of sorts, while the third is married but having an affair. I should also mention the third guy, Vincent, (who is married to Charlotte Gainsbourg’s character, Gabrielle), is played by Yvan Attal, who also wrote the script and directed the film − and is married to Charlotte Gainsbourg off-screen! So not surprisingly, they had a great chemistry on-screen, particularly in the food fight scene, which is just hilarious:

I also like the way the fight is intercut with footage of the horse chase in the film they were watching. Also, a running gag throughout the film is Vincent’s attempts to scare both his son and wife (which often happens when Gabrielle is bathing their son, so the son gets scared and splashes his mother, who then becomes angry at him!). There are plenty more clever moments like this in the film, such as when Vincent is with his wife, who asks him “Do you love me?” and he replies something like: “Yes, but I also love my wife”, and then we see he is suddenly with his mistress, who must have asked him the same question. The film is almost multi-protagonist although it focuses more on the relationship between Gabrielle and Vincent.

So now, on to Depp’s cameo, which just had me both cringing and laughing − it was a great addition to the film. The first time we encounter Depp’s character is when Gabrielle is listening to a CD in a store and he comes up and also puts on a set of headphones. To the soundtrack of Radiohead’s “Creep”, we see a few minutes of awkwardness mixed with attraction as the two share glances. And I have to say, the music suits perfectly and Depp’s smile was just, wow. We don’t see Depp again until the end of the film, when Gabrielle, who is a real estate agent, takes him to an apartment inspection. Depp seems to speak French very fluently and their conversation is quite amusing, and the lift ride is so over-the-top and dramatic, that it’s one of my favourite scenes. It becomes this fantastical trip that is actually the last scene of the film, so we never really know what happens between Gabrielle and Depp:

Another great scene (there seem to be a lot in this well-written film!), is when Gabrielle is actually sitting next to her husband’s mistress in a restaurant (unknowingly, of course). Vincent actually calls both of them in the scene, and many times it seems like his wife is about to find out but it seems like only the mistress discovers who she was sitting next to. This scene reminded me of another film but I can’t put my name to it − for some reason, another film I think of is Lantana though I don’t exactly know why.

Also, just as a little side note, I am a little confused in one scene, where there was an older woman and her husband having dinner at a restaurant − I couldn’t figure out the relevance. Maybe I just lost concentration for a bit but yeah, I don’t know the point of that scene, or who it was depicting. Anyway, that is just a minor qualm in an otherwise entertaining and engaging film about romantic ideals and love (not surprising, given the title) and one that I highly recommend.

4.5/5

The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson, 2001)

2010-11-04T11:57:00.002+11:00

After hearing how good this film was, I finally had a chance to watch it. The first thing that struck me was the strong cast − Gene Hackman, Anjelica Huston, Ben Stiller, Gwyneth Paltrow, Luke Wilson, Owen Wilson, Danny Glover and Bill Murray − all introduced in the opening credits. Not surprisingly, this sets some high expectations for the film, which looking back, I think the film managed to fulfil.

It’s a bizarre, original, dark comedy film, which is what I like most about it. The film is about three child geniuses who, after a successful childhood, have several troubles later on in life: from secret lives to love and even suicide attempts. After watching the film, I found out that Owen Wilson wrote the script − I didn’t know he wrote movies but it shows that he’s not only a good actor but good writer as well.

One of the interesting things I noticed about the script was that it was quite complex and full of details and information that the audience needed to take in to understand the motivations behind the characters’ actions. As a result, the film made heavy use of narration and titles (like “Chapter One, etc”), to drive the story forward and explicitly tell the audience what was happening. I was thinking about this while watching the film and I think that in The Royal Tenenbaums, this approach worked, whereas for many other films, it would ruin the experience and perhaps even bore the audience, who are just being told all this information. I think the main difference is that this film assumed an intelligent audience − you had to put clues and minor details together to understand some of the things the characters would say or do.

So overall, this was a good film − I liked it because of its unconventional approach and underlying dark humour.

4/5

Story of a Love Affair (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1950)

2010-11-01T20:11:00.001+11:00

I’m quite sure this is the first Antonioni film I’ve seen and I guess it matched my expectations but didn’t inspire me as much as some of the previous Italian neorealist films I have watched. Apparently, it’s Antonioni’s first feature film − he was directing documentaries beforehand. I was a little confused as I had the English dubbing with English subtitles and sometimes at random times the dubbing would stop, leaving just the subtitles, which actually were more concise than the dubbing.

There were some instances of interesting camera techniques, such as a tracking shot following the detective from behind as he walked around the room at the beginning of the film. Also, when Paula and her lover Guido are walking together along the street. I think there is also some symbolism at the beginning of the film when there are stars in the sky shown, then about half way through the movie, they are shown again − a sort of foreboding presence.

In a way although this is a neorealist film, Paula had the air of a star in this film. I guess I’m speaking from watching classic Murnau and Ophüls films, where the main characters are so rich and living in ultimate stylish luxury. Paula was quite beautiful, a typical Hollywood starlet, apart for the fact that it wasn’t a Hollywood film. I found her a very complex character. At the start I may have even felt a little sympathy for her but near the end she became so pathetic, melodramatically blaming Guido for the death of her husband − which he didn’t end up committing, as the husband crashed his car into a ditch (as he was shot by someone else?). She was quite dramatic and confused at times, as if she didn’t know what she really wanted. Actually, I found a lot of the characters, particularly the detectives when they are talking about how little they’ve found about Paula, they tended to use overblown hand gestures combined with really enigmatic and animated language. I guess this made the film stand out from most of the other neorealist films I’ve seen, seeing as though it featured an upper class lady, while most of the others were literally “on the street” films, featuring everyday people. This film made it hard to believe that there were people like this (wealthy) living at the same time as the poor protagonists of Bicycle Thieves. Also, I have to say the saxophone music was a little jarring, it gave the film an eerie feel, which may have been intentional.

Nevertheless, unlike Hollywood films, this one again ended with a sense of uncertainty − Paula’s husband, Enrico, is killed, just like the lovers planned but it seems like things may not be so happy ever after, with Paula dropped off home as Guido drives away into the darkness. So do they actually stay together for the rest of their lives? That is the strongest aspect of realism in the film. Though I have to say it was interesting how Guido’s fiancée was killed − we learn throughout the film that she was killed in an elevator shaft, when Guido and Paula were both present but failed to let her know the elevator wasn’t actually there. That is a unique way of dying − not the most realistic but different. The whole film was like this − ok to watch but I don’t really know how to react.

3/5

Bande à part (Band of Outsiders) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1964)

2010-10-14T20:41:00.003+11:00

Well, this was a good film − not great but ok (and it's tough to say this, given Godard is one of my favourite directors). But the reason I say it because looking back there wasn’t anything especially engaging for me, as I felt that none of the three major protagonists really drew my attention. Odile (Anna Karina) was very up and down − sometimes she was naïve and frustrating other times entertaining, I expected more from Franz (Sami Frey) and Arthur (Claude Brasseur), well I didn’t like his poor, criminal character. Also, the plot made the film a lot more coherent and flowing than the usual fragmented Godard − it wasn’t so avant-garde, which is unusual seeing as though this was his seventh film.

There were however some fine Godard moments. I liked the beginning when the title came up on screen (of course) superimposed over rapid jump cuts of the faces of the three characters. It was sort of echoing what the medium of film does; that is − quickly play images in succession − and it looked good (and also worked to set up the love triangle in the film). Also, there's a very telling moment when Godard’s name appears in the opening credits as “Jean-Luc Cinéma Godard” − that’s probably as obvious as you can get in highlighting Godard’s relationship with cinema − he lives it, he is it.

The plot centres on the two young men who plan to steal money from Odile’s aunt’s house though they end up killing the uncle and Arthur gets killed as well (we find out the aunt was faking her death after being locked up in the closet). Godard sums up the plot himself near the beginning when he says statements like “two young men”, “a romance”, “a house by the river”. Although Odile is initially for the plan, she alternates between hesitance and helping the two guys out so I guess that’s where I would’ve liked to see her as a stronger character − though I suppose that’s pretty rare for a strong female lead and that would severely change the film’s dynamics, as well as the story. The film is commonly classified as a gangster film and we see the characters pretend to shoot each other (until they actually do use their guns later on). At one point, when the characters are discussing when to steal the money, Godard’s voice-over narration says that Arthur wants to wait for nightfall, “in keeping with the tradition of bad B movies”, which is ultimately what this film becomes.

I like the scene in the English class near the beginning of the film, where the teacher writes on the board: “classique = modern” and Karina recites a quote by Eliot (which apparently is paraphrased from one of his essays): “Everything that is new is automatically traditional”. These phrases bring up interesting ideas about the New Wave and how it sought to be different from the classic, traditional past of the cinema. Also in the class, the teacher recites Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, which ever so plainly, foreshadows the plot of the film itself, the two lovers (Arthur and Odile) and the death. The film becomes a sort of tragedy although not a melancholic one, almost a tragicomedy as Karina though upset at first, seems to quickly leave that all behind her − almost as if tragedy is a thin layer of the film. That’s the impression I got anyway, especially in moments that were almost parodying the gangster/crime genre, such as the scene with the ladder, as the two criminal (with their faces covered in Karina’s stockings) struggle to set it up.

There also seemed to be minor themes surrounding lying and deceit − a lot of things were mixed up (such as the glasses in the café and the individuals themselves, who keep changing seats). I like how in that same café, when Karina goes to the bathroom downstairs, we hear music playing from the film Umbrellas of Cherbourg (which was premiering at the time Godard was filming Band of Outsiders) and Franz also whistles songs from the musical too. I have to say, I was just stunned when Karina went into the bathroom and there we see a girl who looks like Chantal Goya (and I’m convinced it’s her even though she’s not in the credits), putting on eyeliner in the mirror, just like in Masculin, Féminin, which was to be filmed a few years later. Very cool. Also I found a few times in the film we see Karina go off-screen but we still see her in a reflection, echoing Vivre Sa Vie, a film she had starred in earlier. Speaking of other Godard films, I swear the kitchen where Arthur takes out his gun is used in another Godard film and I’m pretty sure it’s La Chinoise.

Given the overt presence of music, I like the minute silence in the café, when all sound, even the atmosphere, is muted. Also, I really enjoyed the famous dance scene, where Godard’s voice-over tells us what each character is thinking as they dance the routine, which by the end of the long shot, I think I had the routine memorized myself!

Other references/interesting trivia: they meet at a café called Tout va Bien, the character of Franz is named after writer Fran Kafka (as apparently the actor looked like him), they walk past a clothing store called “Nouvelle Vague”, as well as run through the Louvre, which is a nice setting to utilise I think. These titbits I learnt from the very useful special features’ visual glossary, which describes various references in the film.

Other features include: interviews with a young Godard, an older Karina, as well as Raould Coutard (cinematographer) and the usual trailers (which I don’t know if it’s just me, but they seem to give away the whole film, pretty much a visual summary of the main clips in the film). Oh and there is also a short film by Agnes Varda, Les Fiancés du Pont Mac Donald, which stars Karina and Godard, as a sort of Buster Keaton figure, in a great little classic silent film − complete with cute comedic music. It's a rare glimpse of Godard at a younger age, and as an actor − it's great! Here it is:

3.5/5

Juno (Jason Reitman, 2007)

2010-09-30T19:26:00.004+10:00

I was a little late to getting on the Juno bandwagon but I’ve been eager to see this film for a while, after hearing all the hype about it. Unfortunately, it wasn’t terrific but it was fresh, creative and original − which are quite rare qualities in films made nowadays. Beginning from the cartoon-ish opening sequence, this film seemed to cater to a modern and I think, younger audience with some contemporary editing and overall style. However, I did find what I thought was a little over-the-top use of teenage slang in Juno’s phone call to her friend quite grating. Nevertheless, it was a delightful film, which interestingly had John Malkovich as one of its producers.

The film had a number of tensions and contrasts in it, which I guess gave it its colour and uniqueness. For instance, Juno at some points was quite immature and didn’t seem to grasp the significance of her pregnancy, such as when she has some biting remarks to the adopting parents and her “boyfriend” Paulie Bleeker. The encounter with Bleeker in the corridor, when she was jealous that he was going to the prom with another girl, well, that was just scathing and real bitchy. Maybe it was part of the hormones in action during her pregnancy but at that point I really sympathised with Bleeker. Then at other times Juno is quite mature, such as when she organises adoptive parents herself and is quite independent. The character of Vanessa (one of the adoptive parents) also flips between a seemingly cold person and a warm, nurturing figure. Like Juno, I also didn’t seem to get the problem of her hanging out with Mark (the other adoptive parent, who eventually divorces Vanessa). He was chilled out and obviously relatable to Juno, with his musical interests. There is an obvious age-difference but I think it was an unusual part of the plot.

Speaking of the plot − I am pleased that Diablo Cody won an Oscar for the script of Juno, as it is “different”. I admire the fact it took a subject such as teen pregnancy and changed the way it was viewed, though some people have criticised it as glamorising teen pregnancy. Another thing that struck me was the “imperfect” adoptive parents. As Juno remarks, it was supposed to be a perfect family for the baby − Vanessa and Mark end up divorcing − but Vanessa ends up with the child as a single mum. So the film clearly challenges ideas about these topics, which is part of its unique appeal.

4/5

Don Juan DeMarco (Jeremy Leven, 1994)

2010-09-04T17:29:00.002+10:00

A fantastic little story, completely different to what I expected. I thought I was going to be watching a drama of some sort and then when the film opened with Depp putting on a Don Juan DeMarco outfit, I thought it was going to be set in a traditional village in Mexico. So turns out, this is a comedy set in modern-day New York. Johnny Depp plays a man who believes he is the famous lover Don Juan DeMarco and who undergoes psychiatric treatment with Dr Jack Mickler (played by the legend Marlon Brando who is almost unrecognisable), after attempting to commit suicide. The film is mostly made up of Don Juan telling the doctor about his life in the form of flashbacks.

Don Juan is an intensely romantic character who had spent his life seducing women but has been deeply troubled after being rejected by the girl he thought was “the one” (which happened, not surprisingly, after he admitted he slept with 1502 women!). But as Don Juan tells his story (in Depp’s flawless accent), which seems to get more believable as the film progresses, we see changes in the doctor. Don Juan’s idealistic notions of love and adoration for women inspires the doctor to try and spice up his own relationship with his wife Marilyn (played by Faye Dunaway). Though this plot is vulnerable to flaws, it didn’t seem to matter, as I was entertained and engrossed in the film for what it was − a delightful story.

I like the nice interweaving of Don Juan’s flashbacks, which added to the film and weren’t just boring attempts to fill the plot holes and provide background. Neither were the discussions between the doctor and Don Juan boring, as they moved from light conversation to deeper themes of love. While Don Juan has these romantic notions, his ideas of love seem to differ. In one scene, we see how after he leaves his first love in Mexico and ends up in a harem in the Middle East, he seems unable to overcome the feeling he had for the previous woman. Although, a few minutes later he is happily entertaining the sultaness. He also says to the doctor: “I am not limited by my eyesight”, which I think sums up his attitude to life. Brando also gave an enjoyable performance, which, honestly I don’t think would be too difficult for him in this role. Nevertheless, after telling Don Juan he is Don Octavio de Flores, a relative of someone he knows (in order to convince him to step off the ledge where he wanted to commit suicide), it was interesting to see how he almost began to feed off Don Juan’s stories and ideas and started applying them in his own life. Some entertaining moments include near the start of the film, when Don Juan is with a woman and when she is about to scream with pleasure, it cuts to a Mexican singer performing (a cameo by the famous Mexican singer Selena). I also found it amusing the way the nurses at the psychiatric hospital were so immersed in Don Juan − offering to walk him to the next room or look after him. And then, noticing this they put a tough-looking male nurse in charge of Don Juan (who we later see dancing with him outside). At one point, the doctor wants to have a deeper conversation with his wife and asks her about her hopes and dreams, to which she replies, “I thought you’d never ask!” − a charming yet poignant moment.

I admire the script, which manages to combine both a modern-day environment with the legend of Don Juan, written by Lord Byron. The ending is also really creative, as the retired doctor travels to the remote island, where Don Juan said his true love was, and we see her emerge and embrace him. So while this may suggest he was in fact telling the truth (though he is living in the wrong era to be the real Don Juan), the doctor, who is now narrating, says something like, “And was she waiting there for him?... Why not?” So immediately this turns the tables and the doctor is now in control. So rather than solving the question of whether the young man was indeed delusional, the ending actually focuses on the doctor’s life or perhaps what is his fantasy.
This film, which was actually produced by Francis Ford Coppola, is a great story to just relax and be entertained by. Now I really want to watch The Brave, which was released three years later and also stars Brando with Depp, who are a real mega-actor combination.

4.5/5

Dying Breed (Jody Dwyer, 2008)

2010-08-24T23:11:00.001+10:00

I haven’t seen many Australian horror films, so this was going to be an interesting experience. I happened to change the channel and this film was about to show and the main reason I was drawn to it was that it involves the Tasmanian Tiger (an animal which is said to be extinct but nevertheless intrigues me). The film is about a zoology student, who along with three others, goes to Tasmania on a search for the Tasmanian Tiger. However, instead they come across cannibal descendants of Alexander “The Pieman” Pierce.

The film wasn’t terrifying but there was enough suspense and curiousity to sustain me through ‘till the end. The end was probably the best part of the film. Unusually, none of the four main characters survive (well, we hear the screams of the last two survivors being tortured and seeing as their captors are cannibals, the survivors are likely to become a nice meal for them).

The film had the eerie yet beautiful Tasmanian forest which provided the stereotypical isolated and dark setting of this horror film. It was a good attempt at what is a mysterious film genre − Australian horror, although I probably won’t be watching it again (unless I’m pointing out the gruesome props used in the film to someone else).

3/5

Bram Stoker’s Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola, 1992)

2010-08-13T23:51:00.001+10:00

In the spirit of Friday the 13th, I settled down to watch this film. I am a big fan of the book, which I read about a month ago, so not surprisingly, I had high expectations for a film that refers to the original book’s author in its title (and the fact it was made by Coppola only increased those expectations). I was curious to see how it would compare with the visuals I created in my mind while reading the novel and how it would unravel in a two-hour film.

I don’t know if it was because I really wanted it to be faithful to a novel I consider one of my favourites − which is kind of an impossible feat − but I was slightly disappointed in this film. The main problem for me was that the complex plot line was condensed into the film in such a way that made it seemed like it was constantly moving to the next event. As a result, you never really understand the characters or get to know them. The book was full of suspense but this film didn’t have that same level. For instance, it’s not long after Jonathon Harker goes to Count Dracula’s castle that he starts to suspect his strange behaviour.

Unfortunately, the Dracula portrayed by Gary Oldman was also not how I imagined the character from reading his description in the book. To me, in the novel Dracula initially seemed like a gracious, intelligent, perhaps misunderstood and isolated character. There are descriptions of his curiosity about the world and the discussions he had with Harker. He was a good host to Harker in the beginning, whereas in the film we immediately see this old, frightening unhuman creation in front of our eyes, who seems to make almost no effort to be hospitable. Both the physical appearance and behaviour were just surprising for me, although, it does fit in with the stereotypical image of Dracula and vampires. I guess in my mind, Dracula was more relatable and as a result, Harker doesn’t immediately suspect him as some evil being (unlike in the film). In the book, I almost felt sympathy for Dracula in the beginning and was more realistic I suppose. Instead of the wild, hairy beast and bat-like creature we see in the film, I think the book gave him this slightly supernatural element (and that’s why Harker just deems him a little strange when he first sees him). He seemed decent enough in the book (at least at the beginning) but in the film we don’t even get a chance to understand him − this man with big grey hair, long nails and freaky white skin leaves you with almost no choice but to despise him as your typical villain.

Also, there’s no way I can’t mention the other actors in the film. Winona did quite a good job, particularly near the end, and Gary Oldman showed his mastery as Dracula, although I was slightly lost when we first see him talking to Mina on the street (as a Prince) and then meets up with her various times later on − I don’t remember that in the book or maybe it wasn’t that explicit. I found that personally, the book wasn’t that much about love and seduction. so maybe I missed some undertones in the novel but there was no doubt of this raw lust in the film.

But I have mixed feelings about Keanu Reeves as Harker. Whenever I see him I always think The Matrix and it was just hard to relate to his character because he seemed a little cold and it was just a little odd to see him in such a role. Anthony Hopkins brought his own representation of Van Helsing to the screen, however, though the character was one of my favourites in the book, I didn’t particularly like him in the film. The moment when the men are about to set off to kill Dracula, Van Helsing says something about Lucy being the demon’s lover and is so upbeat about it just really put me off.

However, on a more positive note, I admire the film’s artistic vision and the cinematography was pleasing to watch. I like Coppola’s unique interpretation of the atmosphere and tone of the film, with some surreal scenes, such as Harker being seduced by the female vampires in Dracula’s castle. Each time a victim is bitten, it is definitely not your stereotypical bite on the neck but a sensual and otherworldly experience that just mesmerises you − clearly this is not meant to be a grounded interpretation. Other interesting features, were Dracula’s shadows on the wall, which had a life of their own, as well as the clever cuts and fades in the film, such as the match cut between the severed head and the roast on a table.

The film had a positive reception when it was released and I think it was largely because as a film it is sufficiently engaging and has some admirable camerawork. However, that saying about books being better than films seems to hold true for this movie and I think many fans of the book would agree. Maybe the title should have been “Coppola’s Dracula” instead?

3/5

Birdy (Alan Parker, 1984)

2010-08-06T13:03:00.006+10:00

Not a lot of action but a film that focuses more on the mind and mental states of people. It is based on the novel by William Wharton. The story is about two friends, Birdy and Al (played by Nicolas Cage), who become friends at school and then serve in Vietnam. We see how Birdy has a disturbing fascination with birds, which his Vietnam experience seems to increase, so much so that when he returns from the war, he is sent to a mental hospital (where he stops speaking completely). Al visits him and tries to get him to talk and rekindle their boyhood friendship, which we see throughout the film via many flashbacks. It was hard to sympathise with Birdy, the obsession with birds seems distances me and makes it hard to understand his character. Thus, we are left to fall back on Cage’s strong performance and desperation as he attempts to “save” Birdy and prove that he is still the same young boy he once was.

3.5/5

Jour de Fête (Jacques Tati, 1958)

2010-07-25T20:27:00.001+10:00

I have fond memories of watching my first Tati film, Play Time, so I was definitely looking forward to seeing what this skilled comic director would deliver this time around in Jour de Fête.

The film centres on a local French postman, Francois (played of course by Tati), who delivers the mail to a small town on his bicycle each day. When a travelling fair visits the town, they show a film about the American postal service, which is just ridiculously advanced. For instance, mailmen jump out of helicopters and planes and ride on motorbikes through rings of fire to deliver their mail. There’s even a segment about the “sexiest mailman” competition and we see topless postman parading on a stage. It is quite amusing and seemed to me like a sarcastic parody of the American “larger than life” Hollywood attitude, where everything is full of action and the mailmen are heroes who have special training on order to be able to deliver the mail to the citizens of America. It also seems to suggest an over-reliance on technology within society − a theme which is continued in many of Tati’s other films, such as Play Time.

Anyway, so Francois sees part of the screening of this film about American mailmen and not surprisingly the townspeople and even he himself, feel that his bicycle method is feeble compared to their American counterparts. So the rest of the film sees Francois attempting to be more efficient and modern when delivering the mail, such as learning how to jump on and off the bike without having to stop the bike.

A story like this sets up the film for a lot of slapstick humour and that’s what we get largely because of Tati’s lanky character, who reminds me of an earlier version of Mr Bean. The start of the film is ok but the arrival of the postman takes it to a new level of entertainment − he injects the humour into the film. A slightly naïve, harmless, clumsy guy, the postman makes some funny expressions. One of my favourite scenes is when the postman “leads” the teams of people getting ready for the fair. His little “ooooooh” at the end just made me laugh out loud − similarly to when I was watching Play Time. Another clever moment was near the beginning of the film, when a guy and girl (who had been giving each other looks) stand in front of one another in silence but from inside the cinema we hear the voices from the film saying things like, “I love you”, etc, and having these off-screen dialogue match what supposedly the couple in front of us are thinking. A minor detail that I also liked was the bees that you can always hear buzzing whenever the postman or someone else rides along a particular road. I was amused that there was this continuity − the postman swats away the bees then later another character passes the same road and does the same thing, adding some physical humour to the story. I really admired the inventiveness of the postman, who at one point, grabs some stationary and letters from the office then when he is on his bike, which is jammed into the back of a truck and stuck there so it moves with the truck. He then sits on the bike and takes out his stationary, using the back of the truck as a desk where he stamps letters in an effort to be more efficient with the mail delivery. Interestingly, at the beginning of the film, we see a grandma walking through the town − she appears throughout and acts as a sort of narrator, providing commentary on what is happening in the background. Strangely. though she is kind of omnipresent, she appears invisible to the other characters, or at least no one replies to her comments, and it isn’t until later in the film when the postman himself travels with her. I also liked the last scene where a boy is walking toward the camera and the truck which is transporting one of the rides from the fair, and as the truck speeds up we see him gradually get left further behind. I think that was a nice finish, marking the ending of this fair and of the fun of the film.

While I did enjoy the film, I felt it started to lag a little in the middle when the postman is drunk at night − coupled with the lack of lighting, I was not as engaged in that scene. Speaking of, it’s worth mentioning how this film was quite technologically advanced for its time. It was filmed with two different cameras − a black-and-white one and a new, more experiential colour camera. The film ended up being developed in black-and-white with some hand-coloured additions by Tati and 1995, the new technology allowed colour restoration.

3.5/5

Chinatown (Roman Polanski, 1974)

2010-07-16T18:56:00.001+10:00

Quite an engaging and mysterious film. It’s about Jack Nicholson who plays a private investigator Gittes, hired to help couples find out if their spouse is cheating. In this one case, involving a Mr Mulwray (chief engineer for the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power), Gittes becomes entangled and consumed in what we see is an increasingly complex story. I was quite shocked when we find out Mr Mulwray is dead (eventually we find out he was drowned) and immediately became suspicious of his wife. I was again shocked, though in a more physical way, when we hear the bullet shots when Gittes is in the orange groves − they literally made me jump!

I can understand why this film has been praised for its scriptwriting and won so many awards because it absorbs this audience in a psychological, thrilling tale, and unlike many other Hollywood films, the audience doesn’t always have the upper hand or an all-knowing status − we want to find out information just as much as the characters do. This film really made me think about what the audience is positioned to feel toward and about the characters. At first, it may seem like we should be almost frowning upon the private investigator’s practice, an idea emphasised with that sly joker face of Nicholson’s. Nevertheless, as the story progresses, our sympathies start to lie with him and he becomes the only one we can trust − he pretty much becomes a victim. Strange connection but reminds me of a quote from Pirates of the Caribbean, where Jack Sparrow says something like “a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest”. but we never know if Gittes is really in control or if he’s just a pawn in someone else’s larger plan.

The film really let Polanski’s darkness shine through (excuse the pun) with the sister/daughter situation. Speaking of, Polanski has a cameo has a character who slices Gittes’ nose − so not dark at all! The suspense also builds up really well near the end. Interesting use of Chinatown as some sort of strange, mysterious place − I think having such a mystifying setting really adds another layer to this film.

4/5

Sleepy Hollow (Tim Burton, 1999)

2010-07-10T22:18:00.001+10:00

I remember the first time I watched this film I was not really a fan of horror films yet. I hadn’t seen many mostly because I didn’t want to be scared, I wanted a film that would entertain. (Whereas, nowadays I'm really open to everything!) But this film definitely made an impression on me − it was thrilling yet the way the elements of the film were put together really intrigued me. For instance, you have the appropriately haunted-looking Sleepy Hollow hamlet, which is the site of the murdering headless horseman. The place is just filled with fog and everything looks cold, dark and dreary. Have to also commend director Tim Burton, who just excels working with this atmosphere and environment in his films, such as Sweeney Todd, which this film really reminds me of.

Combined with the nature of the landscape, which is a common feature of horror films, Sleepy Hollow also has a lack of warmth in its characters. We have the bumbling, faint-hearted, scientifically-minded Inspector Ichabod Crane, the film’s protagonist (played by the talented Johnny Depp), who is really the only person we can relate to or even trust. Although, unlike a typical “hero” figure, he has a number of obvious flaws which in effect make him more real I suppose. There is also Katrina Van Tassel (Christina Ricci) who becomes his love interest but she is a mysterious and magical character. She keeps the audience guessing as to her intentions − sometimes she seems to be involved in the evil activities that haunt the town and in other instances she is a pure, innocent girl. Then we have her father and various other prominent people in the town, whose behaviour leads the audience to suspect one of them as being involved with the headless horseman’s killings. Satisfyingly, we find out that Katrina’s stepmother is in control of the horseman and behind the decapitations. She sneaks past our suspicious throughout the film, which manages to draw our suspense well. The film is based on a novel by Washington Irving so not surprisingly, there was enough material and mystery in the plot to keep me engaged in what turns out to be a nice gory story essentially about revenge.

4.5/5

Robert De Niro filming in Melbourne

2010-07-07T21:50:00.000+10:00

Robert De Niro has arrived in Melbourne and is staying in town for 10 days to shoot his role in the film The Killer Elite.

Here's an article and photos from the set as reported on The Age.

Co-stars Jason Statham and Clive Owen were in Melbourne a few months ago to film their parts.

Shrek Forever After (Mike Mitchell, 2010)

2010-07-03T22:13:00.001+10:00

As I Shrek fan I was looking forward to seeing what they would come up with in the fourth film, and not surprisingly, I wasn’t expecting to be blown away, given the many exhausted film franchises still being pushed into the box office. But I’m glad to say the latest Shrek was actually entertaining − there was still many jokes to be had and a pretty decent storyline.

Basically this film revolves around daddy Shrek (who is having some sort of mid-life crisis) who makes a deal with the evil Rumpelstiltskin that gives him a day as a ‘normal’ ogre but ultimately leaves him having to win Fiona’s affections again, as the deal messes with Shrek’s past. Kind of long-winded to explain but reflects the character of Rumpelstiltskin himself, who is all about details, minor clauses and manipulating people into signing contracts that ultimately backfire (beware of the fine print!).

The film sees the return of all our favourite characters and we see how their lives would have turned out if Rumpelstiltskin was in charge of the land Far Far Away. The always cute Puss is without boots, having retired and become a very plump little cat. He’s with Fiona, who makes the most of her tom-boy character as the leader of the underground ogre revolution (yes, for once we see other ogres in the film). Meanwhile, Donkey is unmarried and has no recollection of his companionship with Shrek but his generous, albeit slightly naïve personality has him once again develop friendship with the ogre. Plus, you have the delicious Gingerbread Man, Three Little Pigs, Pinocchio and many other fairytale creatures back for some more entertainment. Meanwhile, this film introduces the characters of Rumpelstiltskin, the Pied Piper (or should I say, Bounty Hunter!) and many evil witches who provide some amusing moments in the film. Interestingly, this film is one which relies on previously established fairytales and puts them in a new light, with the addition of Shrek and his close friends (Fiona and Donkey). So rather than inventing new characters, I think the script writers had the more challenging task of taking well-known story characters and giving them depth and making them fit into the Shrek films − and I think it’s worked. Overall, it was worth watching the final chapter of the film series which I think has now become a fairytale of its own.

4.5/5

Eloge de L’Amour (In Praise of Love) (Jean-Luc Godard, 2001)

2010-06-30T19:19:00.000+10:00

I guess I need to be more in the mood when watching this film because it’s real deep. There is no complex storyline yet the film is very dense. It’s about an author, Edgar, who is writing a project which deals with the four stages of love: union, passion, separation and reconciliation. The second part of the film (about an hour into it) is a flashback a few years earlier, exploring when and where he met the woman he is going to cast in his project, before (as well as an elderly couple, whose experience in the Holocaust is going to be the subject of a Spielberg film).

I like how the first part of the film is in black and white, while the second in this bright, vibrant saturated colour, as well as plenty of long shots. Some of the scenes with a reddish ocean are so beautiful. The film continually repeats the titles “De quelque chose” and “De L’Amour”, as well as this classical, intermittent piano music (which although I really liked at the start, by the end of the film it was starting to bore me). Interestingly, I think the film both mourns and celebrates love (as “elegy” and “eulogy” as very similar) but also makes wider comments about society, particularly about the State, America (and how they use other people’s stories) and history (and peoples’ lack of knowledge about it).

Some of the thought-provoking quotes include: (Edgar talking about his project) “We need the three ages, you see. Or else the project’s dead. It becomes a story with Julia Roberts. Hollywood. Not History. (Yes with a capital letter!)”, “Isn’t it strange how history has been replaced by technology?”, “Americans have no real past. They have no memory of their own. Their machines do, but they have none personally. So they buy the past of others. Especially those who resisted. Or they sell talking images. But an image never talks.” Although I think this is the newest Godard film I’ve seen, it’s actually very experimental and gives the impression of being one of his earlier works.

2.5/5

Tim Burton in Melbourne!

2010-06-22T22:52:00.001+10:00

Tonight I had the fantastic opportunity to attend my favourite director, Tim Burton's Castaway session at ACMI ahead of the opening of his exhibition on Thursday.

He revealed the top five films he would take on a desert island, which were an interesting mix of horror, monsters and... well, they weren't exactly Oscar-winning films!

But I'm not surprised with his choices, as you can see how his eclectic selection has had an impact on his own personal style and appreciation of films.

Can't wait to see the exhibition!

Being John Malkovich (Spike Jonze, 1999)

2010-06-16T20:35:00.001+10:00

Well, what a strange film. (So of course, I’m going to like it!) But just really bizarre. An amusing John Cusack with long hair plays puppeteer Craig Schwartz, who discovers a portal to John Malkovich’s mind and then along with workmate Maxine (who he falls in love with), exploits it by charging people to enter it. His wife, Lotte (played by Cameron Diaz), enters the portal and falls in love with Maxine, who in turn falls for John Malkovich. An intertwining love triangle ensues as well as just some plain weird plot twists and definitely an unpredictable storyline. Craig eventually discovers how to control Malkovich’s mind and turns him into a successful puppeteer. Meanwhile, Lotte discovers that Craig’s boss has been living through this portal all his life.

The film ends with Craig leaving the portal under pressure from his boss, (who had kidnapped Maxine). A pregnant Maxine ends up giving birth to a child (which was conceived while Lotte was John Malkovich) and we finish by seeing Lotte, Maxine and their daughter, with the voice of Craig inside her. Clearly, the film has plenty of material for philosophical discussion but what had me thinking while watching was how it would’ve been pitched to studios. First, you have this really imaginative idea − is it a comedy or drama, well, to me it’s a dark comedy drama but there is no real category that suits it perfectly. Then there is the strange sensation of seeing an actor star as himself, as well as a fictional person with someone inside him. Not surprisingly, Being John Malkovich has endured as a cult film and I definitely recommend it − a real original piece of work.

4/5

À Bout de Souffle (Breathless) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960)

2010-06-12T11:42:00.000+10:00

Being one of Godard’s first films, and one of the most highly touted, it was no surprise that I was expecting this movie to blow my mind. Unfortunately, it didn’t have that effect on me. I still enjoyed it but well, I suppose it just didn’t display that trademark Godardian style that became so established as his career progressed. But when I think about it, this was one of his first films so I suppose he still didn’t have such a reputation and this film was more paving the way for the French New Wave of filmmaking rather than for Godard’s unique style. (Also, the film was black and white, so no chance of seeing those beautiful vibrant Godard colours, for one). Actually, I found that this film, maybe because it was so early in his career but it seemed an almost typical Hollywood narrative, with perhaps influences of Italian neorealism (especially in the camerawork).

It is about Michael Poiccard (played by Jean-Paul Belmondo, apparently based on the film persona of Humphrey Boggart − who features in a poster in the film), who after stealing a car and then shoots a policeman. Pretty much the rest of the film centres on how he avoids the police and how he wants to go to Rome with his American journalist (yay!) girlfriend Patricia (who reveals she is pregnant with his baby), who helps him hide, although betrays him at the end. The film ends with Michel staying and getting shot by the police, walking a little bit to the end of the street and finally dying, not before saying something along the lines of “That’s really disgusting” (apparently the direct translation is disputed). Patricia doesn’t hear and asks the policeman what he said, to which the policeman replies “He said you are really disgusting”. Thus, it is kind of mysterious as we don’t know whether Michel is referring to Patricia or society in general. On the note of Patricia, I have to say that her American accent really impeded her French pronunciation − now I can understand why French people would feel a bit weird about foreigners trying to speak their language.

I found the camerawork probably the highlight of the film, as for some reason I couldn’t warm to Belmondo’s character (or Patricia’s really), maybe because he was always trying to seduce her and she was kind of I don’t know, not particularly an active character. Anyway, there were a lot of long takes, from interesting angles too, such as the back of Patricia when she is in the car with Michel, as well as long takes when the camera is looking at her. In addition, there were some nice aerial, or crane shots (I’m not sure), taken from above, showing the beautiful Paris. So in this way, I really liked looking at the French environment in such a fun, interesting, appealing decade (60s).

I found this interesting list of references to Breathless in other Godard films. Godard's own Pierrot le fou (also starring Belmondo) repeats phrases including “We are all dead men on leave” and “Allons-y, Alonso”. A Woman Is a Woman, also co-starring Belmondo, includes a reference to Breathless, when Belmondo's character says he needs to get home because Breathless is being shown on TV.

3.5/5

La Strada (Federico Fellini, 1954)

2010-06-06T20:17:00.000+10:00

Well, the first Fellini film I’ve seen and I can already feel a connection with his work. I wasn’t sure if this was classified as a neorealist film (apparently not on the DVD cover − “Fellini left behind the familiar signposts of neorealism for a poetic fable of love and cruelty”). But I think it does have elements of neorealism, which I’ll explore later on. Though as soon as the credits begin, you get a sense that this is different, more modern − as if after the break of neorealism into a new type of cinema (like Gilles Deleuze’s idea of the time-image?). It is almost like Hollywood feeling but without the colour − there is music and stylish titles (though still non-synchronous sound). Nevertheless, as the film progressed, I felt elements of Italian neorealism poke their head out, as if a director such as Fellini can completely change his style and ignore previous neorealism elements.

The whole film includes a lot of fades, to highlight the fact that time has passed. From the beginning, we see some long shots but largely there are cuts and actually melodrama when brutal strongman Zampano comes to buy Gelsomina. He employs her and although the conditions are better than the poverty she lived in (she has more to eat, for one), she faces horrible treatment from the cruel Zampano. She tries to run away once but he finds her and she ultimately obeys him and returns to the their motorbike-home. However, a strange connection takes place and she begins to grow fond of him, to the point where she sort of jokingly asks if he would ever consider marrying her. They join a circus, where we encounter one of Zampano’s old rivals, Fool a tightrope artist (we actually see him earlier when he is performing in the town). Fool is, what can I say, a bright spark of happiness that immediately endears the audience (and Gelsomina) to him though there is plenty of tension between him and Zampano, not helped by the fact that the Fool teases him every moment he gets. But the Fool gives Gelsomina hope and inspiration and even has an almost serious meaningful philosophical discussion with her (almost because it just seems so strange coming from this joking individual) and there is always that underlying humour present. He is so direct, sometimes it’s hard to tell whether he is joking or not, such as when he tells Gelsomina she has a purpose in life: “You have a purpose too, with that artichoke head of yours”. He doesn’t smile but from his manner we see he means the best for her and as he is a naïve yet optimistic person, it is sad to see him suddenly go (Zampano later kills him “accidentally” after encountering and then punching him).

This moment also marks an important change in Gelsomina, who from then is clearly scarred by seeing the murder, it is as if some hope and life is taken away from her and Zampano kills her spirit. I think he realises this too and gradually we see his guilt begin to emerge in patterns of anger then sudden remorse and even almost a more tender side (as tender as the rough, violent man can get). The death of the Fool makes him seem to get so close to opening up his feelings, before self-realisation kicks in and then ultimately anger at Gelsomina for causing this change. He almost becomes afraid of her in a way as this cycle of guilt and anger continues. “The fool is hurt”, each time Gelsomina utters these words it’s like an alarm to instigate his guilt, as he then asks if she wants to be taken home, to which she replies, “If I don’t go with you, who will?” (Something the Fool told her). Zampano is a complex character − at the start it just seems like he fits the “bad guy” label for this film yet we see his layers throughout the film and deep down we see that he did in fact like Gelsomina. When she asks him if he likes her even a little bit, he replies along the lines of “stop this nonsense, potato head”, immediately severing any sensitivity or emotional ties he could develop. In particular, the scene when he puts the blanket over Gelsomina sleeping outside (a moment of “awww”) before we see he is in fact leaving. But he leaves some money and the trumpet and it is as if he has come to the realisation that he is in fact destroying her spirit.

She is such a childlike and innocent, naïve character. So fragile that, as Martin Scorsese says in the commentary that comes with the film, we don’t really know how much of the “adults” she understands. Then we see, what turns out to be later on, Zampano discovering from a townsperson (who he hears singing Gelsomina’s song) that she has died from a fever and goes gets drunk before we see him go to the beach and collapse on the sand and cry in the final shot of the film. He looks up at the stars (which were mentioned earlier) and the audience understands that he has well and truly come to the understanding that he needed her spirit in his life. As Scorsese also said, his “violence stamped out love” and any possibility he had of expressing emotions. It is like the tragic death of a clown, when happiness itself dies too.

This brings me to Gelsomina herself, played by Federico Fellini’s wife, Giulietta Mansina − such an intriguing character. Her face just draws me immediately. Her expressions are so theatrical and expressive (she gives the impression of inexperience and naivety), she reminds me of Charlie Chaplin. Her big eyes and funny smile make her the perfect physical embodiment of innocent, natural, humour. In the commentary (one of many special features with the DVD), Scorsese points out that the film has a St Franciscan element of neorealism with its compassion for every living being, good or bad. As in the end, the audience does really feel for Zampano. I naddition, he says that the fact Zampano literally “bought” Gelsomina (for 10,000 lire) is also a feature of the harsh, reality of the post-war time − another feature of neorealism. He also points out an interesting idea that the road, which is almost synonymous with the life of travelling artists, is a metaphor of life, with its ups (the Fool) and downs (Zampano). The poor Fool is exactly that − a poor fool whose death is inevitable yet still so tragic. Scorsese relates his character to Robin Williams and says he wanted to include a character like the Fool in his films, such as in some of the films featuring Robert de Niro. A sweet film that seemed to have a mix of so many things, seemingly so simple yet really complex characters − there is more to Gelsomina’s smile than we first think.

4/5

Vicky Christina Barcelona (Woody Allen, 2008)

2010-06-03T11:26:00.000+10:00

A very entertaining film that was so free and open yet engaging. I’m just baffled by how the film was able to be so charming and appealing without a real strong storyline − there weren’t really any major events that took place. It revolved around two girls, Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Christina (Scarlett Johansson), who become entwined in feelings for a womanising free-spirited painter Juan Antonio (played by a fantastic Javier Bardem). Things get a little complicated and “strange” when his ex-wife, Maria Elena (Penélope Cruz) returns and we see that Juan Antonio never really broke up with her − a complicated, tense yet passionate relationship ensues. I was going to write that this film is a lot about feelings but that’s not really accurate because when I look back and think about it, a lot of those emotions weren’t really shown. For a film about relationships, there wasn’t a lot of scenes about those actual relationships but more about the thoughts and effects of them. What the film did focus on and why I think it worked so well, was the strength of the characters. As I mentioned before, this film starred a terrific Javier Bardem (who I hadn’t seen since his amazing performance in Before Night Falls), is charming but at the same time is so mysterious and hard to work out really. And Penélope Cruz was just excellent − a feisty, energetic, amusing and stunning personality − she definitely stole the scenes. But it’s hard to write about this film. For almost two hours you are just there, with the characters experiencing what is sort of a fantasy life with no responsibilities or consequences, full of opportunities and beautiful Spanish surroundings.

4.5/5

Peggy Sue Got Married (Francis Ford Coppola, 1986)

2010-06-01T11:04:00.003+10:00

Surprisingly, I liked this film. A little predictable (until the ending, that is) but still, itwas entertaining enough. I think it was the first film I’ve seen by Francis Ford Coppola and I liked it although I’m sure it’s in stark contrast with films of his such as The Godfather. At the start we see that Peggy Sue has an unsatisfying marriage to her highschool sweetheart, Charlie Bodell (a cool and suave Nicolas Cage), who she married after she fell pregnant at eighteen. She attends a highschool reunion, where she faints and is somehow taken back in time to relive her highschool years. Although an interesting twist, you’d expect her to change her ways to get a happily ever after, Peggy Sue makes much of the same choices although learns more about her husband in the process. At the end, she wakes up in hospital with a worried Charlie by her side and they pretty much rekindle their romance and you get the sense that perhaps they will steer away from divorce. So it’s quite a light, fluffy piece and featuring a great scene where Cage and Jim Carrey’s character and a few other guys, sing in a bar (as Charlie wants to be a singer) − very amusing stuff.

Nicolas Cage sings in a few movies and he’s not too bad. But as for the film, it became more engaging near the end but overall was quite standard − a little surprising that it was nominated for three Oscars (including Best Actress).

3.5/5

Shoeshine (Sciuscià) (Vittorio De Sica, 1946)

2010-05-28T15:30:00.001+10:00

Oh my gosh! That was literally my reaction at the end of this shocking film. It started normally enough − for a neorealist film. Although it wasn’t as “rough” and “authentic” as Roma, Citta Aperta for instance. There were signs of obvious editing and there didn’t seem to be as many long shots. Yes, some shots of the “banal” or more boring, but for the most part, it was like a draft of a Hollywood film almost. I know De Sica’s films are known for the more significant part children play in them and this one was no exception. The main two characters, Giuseppe and Pasquale, are so mature and responsible it just amazed me. They took care of all this business and finances, and I got the impression they were doing better than their parents (who actually borrowed from them). Now I don’t know much about the situation at the time in terms of currency, but I found it a little well, maybe hard to believe that they could afford a horse, and if they could that you would actually spend money on the animal rather than food, for instance. Nevertheless, they were convincing characters and proved to be an effective way of portraying injustice through their innocence and naivety. I noticed that the jail director sort of related to the dictator of a Fascist regime, like Mussolini, particularly when he inspects the food in the kitchen, saying it’s “passable”. He was tough and cold, in contrast to his assistant who ultimately had too much empathy and left the jail, aware of his unsuitability for the environment there. I was impressed with how well they could keep their promise not to rat out their employer. I think this is an example of Gilles Deleuze’s time-image, where the characters are pretty much passive and helpless, as they are locked in jail after being accused of selling stolen goods and their escape is ultimately unfruitful. The fact that it was Giuseppe’s brother that got them the job makes it all the more harder for them to confess.

However, we see Pasquale’s strong man-like exterior crumble when he witnesses what he thinks is Giuseppe being beaten (which is in fact a clever trick involving beating a bag of potatoes and getting a young boy to scream, as if in pain). He then confesses “or grasses” but we see how this event turns his good friend (and pretty much brother) Giuseppe when he finds out from his mother that his brother is being investigated. It seems like the act of beating becomes a catalyst for truth, as later on we see the same thing echoed when Pasquale is beaten (for real this time), after Giuseppe tells the prison director he has a nail file in his cell (which he planted there). And thus, Giuseppe yells out for them to stop beating Pasquale, effectively revealing his guilt and deep-seated love for Pasquale. The little girl Nannarella also has an interesting presence in the film, she hardly speaks but is there with the boys at the start, when they’re taken away, and even in court − she’s like an angel figure I suppose.

The film is not all doom and gloom, as seeing the protagonists are young boys, there are moments of light-heartedness and proof that children can come up with the most amusing things to say. Near the end of the film, before the boys escape, we see them watch a film (which like Pasquale points out, the jail gives them food, shelter and entertainment − “what more could you want?”) and the film becomes almost self-reflexive as we watch them watching a film, and for one of the poor boys (with a lung condition), a rare experience of the joys of cinema. This is before the projector catches fire and causes a mass trampling which ends up with this very boy dead (which honestly, I was kind of expecting). Speaking of death, well the ending is just incredible − so far from the happy, ever after resolutions of Hollywood classical narratives. Pasquale leads the jail director to find the escaped boys (with the intention of running away) and when he finds Giuseppe, he starts slapping his face as an expression of the anger and I suppose regret he feels. Nevertheless, as he hits Giuseppe, he fails to notice the edge of the bridge and results in pushing him over, to have Giuseppe land on the rocks below, motionless and dead. Pasquale just breaks down and of course the guards and jail director come running, we see the horse walk away (a symbol of their dream no longer within reach) and the words “Fine”. So the movie ends on this tragic, painful note and I suppose Pasquale returns to the jail or may even be charged with manslaughter. It’s a terrible way to end a story but so memorable and definitely an example of just how different the movement of Italian neorealism was.

I also like the special features which include interviews with the child stars (now much older men), documentary “Through Children’s Eyes” and segment on neorealism.

3/5

Nick of Time (John Badham, 1995)

2010-05-26T19:47:00.004+10:00

Oh man that was fantastic! My heart is still beating from the suspense! Quite a thrilling story and it was suddenly all over. I did not expect it to be this good, proving that you shouldn’t judge a book (or movie) by its cover. Johnny definitely has a knack for choosing great roles with interesting and engaging protagonists, and this is one of those rare occasions where he kind of plays an action hero (though without a lot of the explosive action so typical of Hollywood films).

It revolves around Gene Watson (the fabulous Johnny Depp) who arrives in Los Angeles with his six-year-old daughter and is approached by a pair of criminals posing as police officers. They kidnap his daughter and plan to kill her if Watson doesn’t follow their orders, which is to go to a nearby hotel and kill the Californian governor in 90 minutes. Although at the start I saw a few plot holes or possibilities that made it less believable and harder to get into the story, by the end of the film I was on the edge of my seat, hoping that Johnny would save the day! To make things scarier, you have the evil Christopher Walken as the main crook, who is always watching Watson to make sure he doesn’t alert the authorities or speak to anyone (which is the first possible flaw avoided). He is always popping up when Watson is trying to communicate his situation to people he encounters. You get the feeling that he won’t be able to commit the assassination but then as the clock ticks (the movie is pretty much in real time), it starts to look like he doesn’t have any option.

Finding a way out becomes more complex as we discover that almost everyone around the governor is in on the plot, including security and even her husband. Watson tries to get her assistant to help and because of Walken’s ability to appear out of nowhere and his connections with everyone (even security), this attempt is soon stopped and she ends up dead. Saviour comes in an unlikely form of a shoeshine man, who at first seems lost and not very helpful but in a second encounter things start to click. Luckily, a happy ending ensues with Watson killing Walken’s character (which was another potential story fault that I kept thinking would have been what I would’ve tried to do) and the shoeshine man kills his criminal assistant and father and daughter are reunited (although we do see one of the criminal/security men get away in a limousine). In a way, quite a sweet movie about an innocent father who has a loving relationship with his daughter and though he is essentially good and moral, extreme situations place him in basic protective mode, ready to do anything to save his daughter. A great film, I think I’ll be watching it again, although probably not for a while as this is the type of movie that is best on its first suspenseful and surprising viewing.

4.5/5

Soigne Ta Droite! (Keep your right up!) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1987)

2010-05-24T23:05:00.005+10:00

Well, I was ready for “a mind-boggling comedy” and well, it sure was! Well, not so much a laugh-out-loud comedy for the most part. Sure, overall it was a refreshing light-hearted film and there were some moments where I was just left with my mouth open. I think most of the credit for my positive impression of the film is due to Jean-Luc Godard who appeared in the film himself, as a director named Prince (referred to in the voice-over as “the Idiot”) who needs to have a film ready for distribution in 24 hours. The film is made up of plenty of sketches, in places such as the plane and on a golf course, as well as meanwhile showing a rock band recording an album. (The rock band is actually Rita Mitsouko − I knew it was familiar, and I found myself singing along to her song “C'est comme ça”, which featured prominently in the film.)

Apparently, the title "Soigne Ta Droite!" is a phrase used in boxing by the trainer, as well as a play on the name of Jacques Tati’s first short film Soigne ton gauche (Keep your left up). I was actually reminded of Tati in this film, seeing as though a lot of the comedy is physical and Godard was just like a Mr Bean slapstick figure, clumsy and weird and just amusing. I love this scene, where he describes how the Wimbledon tennis championship has changed:

It is both an experimental as well as a touch of mainstream comedy type of film, as Godard still questions life and death with his philosophical musings. A frequent intertitle that appears is: “On place sur la terre”, which is “somewhere on earth”, adding to the complexity of the film as the characters try to find their place in the world. I’m sure on closer inspection, there is much more material to draw out but I’m content with just watching the absurdity of the film, and the magnificent Godard try his hand at acting as well, to really feel the need to take in more.

3.5/5

The Garden of the Finzi-Continis (Il giardino dei Finzi-Contini) (Vittoria De Sica, 1971)

2010-05-22T14:53:00.002+10:00

I am slightly disappointed after such a wonderful experience with de Sica’s previous films. I wasn’t expecting this to be great but still, could’ve been better. I think that because the film was made in 1971 it was lacking some of the neorealist elements that I admired in de Sica’s previous films. For one, there were many kind of corny close-ups when people were talking, with the camera also suddenly quickly zooming in to faces, making us very conscience that we were watching a narrative − I don’t know how much realism is in this.

Also, there was an overt political context as seen in the conversations − the whole movie was practically about fascism and it wasn’t positive either. Maybe because of the time it was made, with this hindsight, the director was able to almost provide a commentary, whereas films made in the 1940s for instance, were more ambiguous in political nature. Something that reappeared was the element of dark humour, such as when the father of Giorgio lists what Jews are forbidden to do (which violate so many of their rights), before adding something like: “but other than that, we’re lucky”. It almost makes you laugh were it not for the fact it was true. Another instance was when the old, forgetful grandma asks what Giorgio is doing at her home, to which the other lady replies, “Studying”, with the grandma momentarily looking away before asking the same question once again.

Also, perhaps in the de Sica style, the film ended on a note of uncertainty/sadness, with the Finzi-Continis family taken away with other Jews. Speaking of that family, I also really grew to dislike Micol − just the way she behaved towards the guy who loved her − like playing hard to get but really nice too. She seemed confused about what to do and as a result acted very cruel and unreasonably I thought. I found this film hard to follow, with the different families and all the handsome Italians − who belonged to which family was only made clear as the movie progressed. It just didn’t have as much spark as his earlier films, unfortunately.

2.5/5

Martin Scorsese to make George Harrison doco

2010-05-20T21:33:00.003+10:00

Martin Scorsese has announced at Cannes that he and Olivia Harrison have been collaborating on a documentary about Beatles guitarist George Harrison.

It will be called "Living in the Material World: George Harrison" and looks to be ready for a 2011 release.

With the input of George's wife, Olivia, you can expect to have some deeply personal and illuminating (not to mention never-before-seen) material, and with Martin Scorsese, well, you know you're going to have a quality final product.

There's been so much focus on John Lennon and Paul McCartney, I think it's about time we get an insight into the other Beatles members (maybe one day soon we'll get something on Ringo!).

So as a Beatles fan, I'm looking forward to this one!

Honeymoon in Vegas (Andrew Bergman, 1992)

2010-05-20T13:00:00.001+10:00

Surprisingly, better than I expected. From the film synopsis I knew it was going to be a light-hearted romance type of film. It had a simple premise: Jack (Nicolas Cage)’s mother dies and leaves him with a fear of getting married after she warns him against it. We gather that he works as some sort of private investigator, spying on partners who are suspected of cheating. Anyway, he has a girlfriend Betsy (Sarah Jessica Parker) who wants to get married. Finally, Jack decides to get married to her and they go to Las Vegas in order to marry. However, Jack plays a game of poker and ends up $65,000 in debt to a wealthy, influential shady character, who demands a weekend with his fiancée to clear the debt (clearly, it was a fixed game). After lots of arguing, Jack and Betsy agree and she goes with the man. He whisks her off to Hawaii and we see he is trying to win her heart, saying that he used to have a wife that she reminds him of. After lots of running around on Jack’s part, and Betsy actually getting close to marrying the man, they are reunited when Jack skydives out of a plane in Vegas and she happens to be running away from the man after reconsidering marriage to him, and of course, they meet and get married straight away.

Interesting thing I noted, there were plenty of Elvis impersonators and Elvis cover songs on the movie soundtrack (such as “Viva Las Vegas”, which reminded me of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and then of course, the fact that Cage introduced Depp to acting). The fact that Cage dresses as Elvis when he skydives with the group of Elvis impersonators seems like the role was cut out for him − or maybe as an enticement to the role, as I know Cage is a huge fan of the singer. So that does bring up a curious note. But regardless, I think Cage did a great job − he really is a fine actor and very emotional so I don’t know how people can view him as plain and “fake”. Even in a pretty average movie like this, he played his role well.

3.5/5

Pirates of the Caribbean 4 to be made in 3D

2010-05-18T22:17:00.001+10:00

BBC report that Disney have decided to film Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (the fourth film in the series), in 3D.

Not really surprising, given the recent surge in popularity of 3D technology. For many people the third film was pushing it but I guess we won't know until when the film is released (June 2011) if 3D can help to increase the interest in the fourth film.

Nevertheless, I'm a loyal fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean films so I would happily watch it even if it wasn't in 3D.

Le Mépris (Contempt) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1963)

2010-05-17T14:00:00.001+10:00

Brigitte Bardot − interesting character yet I feel like she didn’t live up to hype of the film. Yes, sure I can understand her part in the success of the film as Godard’s most commercially successful film (and ironically, her least commercially successful film) as a ‘plaything’ for men. But it just seemed like she wasn’t as, I dunno how to describe it, “in your face”, perhaps? She didn’t really have a dominating presence on screen.

It’s funny because every time I see a Godard film, it’s like I’m becoming more and more used to his style and techniques, almost so much that I don’t notice them. For instance, his use of long takes and tracking shots (particularly in the house scene when Paul and Camille (Bardot) are walking around in towels arguing, filmed in almost real-time), the framing (how all the furniture in the house is set up so “nicely” for the mise-en-scene), as well as the references to books. I also really liked the use of colour (Brigitte’s yellow hair, red robe, blue ocean, etc). (I love ’60s colours.) At one point when Bardot is talking to, I think it was, Paul, the camera uses this slow tracking shot across, as the camera moves left to right. This shot, with its slow almost what some would call a ‘boring-ish’ quality, reminds me of the supermarket shot in Tout Va Bien!. That’s the classic Godard I know and love.

Interesting how Jacques Aumont, in his article “The Fall of the Gods”, suggests that although Le Mépris and Federico Fellini’s 8½ are both films about films, in 8½ the “anxiety of creation seems in the end to shake off all material constraints”. Of course, these are two different films at heart, but they do have overarching similarities: the camerawork, use of voiceover narration, as well as the references to the nature of cinema itself within the film (as Aumont states, Godard is “the recognized master of the quotational genre”). Actually, when I was watching 8½, I was immediately reminded of Godard in the way they are both films about films − instantly I thought, “this is like Godard!” − it just struck me like that. And also, actually a closer look will also reveal many similarities. In Le Mépris, when Paul came out of the bathroom wrapped in a towel it reminded me of Guido’s toga sequence in 8½ too. (And I found out the fabulous Marcello Mastroianni was also considered for the part of Paul in Le Mépris but was rejected by Godard). So I think there are definitely more similarities (or are they just pure coincidences?) than Aumont claims.

4/5

Bicycle Thieves (Ladri Di Biciclette) (Vittorio de Sica, 1948)

2010-05-15T14:30:00.000+10:00

I’m beginning to see an interested trend now. I’ve seen a few Italian neorealist films and with The Children are Watching Us most fresh in my mind, these “realistic” type of films seem to be, well, quite negative. I mean, maybe it’s just Vittorio de Sica but The Children are Watching Us ended with the death of one of the endearing characters and Bicycle Thieves almost ends with jail for the father who tries to steal a bike. More significantly, it occurs in front of his son, who is then bawling while the men who catch him in the act threaten to put him in jail. Maybe it’s just the fact that these films are so far from the happy, fairytale Hollywood endings we’re used to that it seems like it’s too much in the pessimist direction when it may be more realistic.

Also, I’ve noticed children seem to play a big role in his films. Perhaps compared to Hollywood film, children are just given more attention, which in effect seems to magnify their importance in comparison. It’s interesting also to note the father-son relationship, while we hardly get a glimpse of the mother interacting with her son Bruno. Is this more realistic? Maybe it was more realistic for that time, in Italy. Anyway, it was a good film, cleverly made.

I particularly like how given the title, you expect there to be some bicycle theft involved (which is actually the whole plot) but the way de Sica puts the audience in suspense is incredible. For instance, when the father is first waiting outside the apartment where his wife has gone to “see a woman”, he is curious to know who she is seeing (turns out to be a psychic of some sorts). So when he momentarily leaves his bicycle, the audience is latterly left squirming as we’re expecting the bicycle to get stole. On top of this, de Sica stretches out the scene as long as possible − we see the couple walking back down the stairs, and the whole time the camera is almost avoiding showing the place where the bicycle was. It is as if he is building up suspense so we see the shocked reaction of the husband when he sees his bicycle is no longer there. However, we’re instead shocked with a pleasant surprise when his bicycle is still standing there, untouched and as an audience we almost feel as if we’ve been tricked. Worth watching.

The Children are Watching Us (I bambini ci guardano) (Vittorio De Sica, 1944)

2010-05-13T13:30:00.000+10:00

Wow. That’s all I can say. This film was so powerful and just amazing − a really beautiful, yet sweet tragic tale. And this is due to the characters, the little boy Prico − he was simply endearing and so honest and innocent he made me cry at the end of the film. “She’s gone” − that is the simplicity of the film − no built up complex narrative just the lives of individuals, the almost banal, everyday life of individuals made so significant. I truly understand the concept and power of neorealism after a film like this. The falling apart of a family where the mother, Nina, is still in love with another man, Roberto, causing her husband strife and uncertainty in their marriage − this was believable and nothing out of the ordinary but just so amazingly portrayed. My sympathies truly lied with the young boy and his father but I have to mention the whole “cast” of non-actors, who I believe were remarkable. It really was as if every life is important, the opposite of Hollywood narratives. If anyone, then the child was the main focus but in a way he was also the victim. He was the reason for secrecy and carefulness about what adults said in front of him yet also the cause for them to stay together or stop arguing.

I expected the title to be symbolic but it really worked well and conveyed so much more than I thought it would − this whole film was such an unbelievably surprising experience. Nina leaving at the beginning, well that was a real shock − especially after spending such a wonderful day with her child at the park. So too, was utterly devastating the death (suicide?) of the father at the end. As soon as I saw the people gathered around I knew something was wrong but I would have never guessed it would end this way − such a sad, lost life and definitely no happy ever happy which I was so used to. I guess that made it all the more poignant − the fact the movie end after the young boy “rejects” his mother after being told the news of his dad.

The film was made in two parts, with the second part almost like a new beginning for the family as the father takes them to the beach to try and erase the painful past. A lot of clever camera work too, which I guess I didn’t expect. For instance, at the beginning when there is the meeting of people living in the apartment about the elevator, the camera never cut to a close-up of a particular person, whoever was speaking, but instead there were shots of groups of people in the frame so you could watch the reaction of others. I guess this is what Bazin, preferring the ambiguity of long takes, would have praised. Another sequence, was when the young boy was on the train and hallucinating from a fever about water, the flowerpot he accidentally knocked onto the Paulina’s head, the puppets he saw in the park and his grandmother saying she wanted tranquillity − everything was put together in a sort of montage, I think, but it was a really surreal glimpse into the boy’s mind very skilfully done. Also, in the restaurant, the camera scans across as people on the various tables talk, providing an interesting way of viewing the conversation. I also really admired the shot of the boy running from a drunk (and then the police) on the beach, with the water blurring and his silhouette so beautifully framed − just pure art.

This film, although tragic, just goes to strengthen my impression that the Italians really know how to do a tragi-comedy. I guess I can say in that way this film is in the same vein as Life is Beautiful, which is also so tragic yet has its subtle, everyday humour. It’s nothing like the exaggerated, obvious humour but everyday real smiles and light moments that just make the events so much more believable. Such as the scene when Prico is trying on a suit for boarding school, we see the sales assistant remove a hat from a boy, who for a moment, I thought was Prico, however we find out it was a mannequin.

I was cringing during the scene of Prico on the train tracks in the path of an incoming train, I thought to myself, “This can’t be the end of him!” And at least he did survive, his soul, his life, his purity and innocence survive the film, perhaps in the end adding a touch of hope. It is such a moving film which is romantic in a way too and I definitely rate it as a masterpiece to be seen. A real work of neorealism, a real work of life on the screen − I loved it.

4.5/5

Iron Man 2 (Jon Favreau, 2010)

2010-05-11T20:38:00.003+10:00

Awesome. That’s what I thought as I walked out of the cinema. (Speaking of, watch until the end credits have finished to get an extra scene). Anyway, few film sequels match up to their original film and after hearing that “the rust was setting in” on the Iron Man franchise, you could almost say I was prepared to be disappointed if that was the case.

It may not be surprising to see I’ve written a positive review of Iron Man 2 but it would have to be a real bad film to get otherwise because firstly, I’m obviously slightly biased when it comes to Robert Downey Jr, which means that I may tend to judge films more on the performance of the main character (which in the case of actors such as Downey, is bound to be positive). Secondly, as I had heard mixed reactions I wasn’t expecting to be blown away and wasn’t going to delude myself if it wasn’t as great as I thought. So I guess I lowered my expectations a little so not surprisingly, this awesome film superseded them.

However, I honestly enjoyed this film. There was action, drama, some sci-fi and even some comedy thanks to Robert Downey Jr’s witty dialogue. (i.e. when Pepper and Tony Stark are talking about the blonde journalist who interviewed him in the first Iron Man. Pepper: “She did a spread on Tony last year.” Tony: “She also wrote an article.” Ooooh!)

I also have to mention the addition of some great actors in this sequel. Besides the fantastic Downey (who seems to just seamlessly be able to slip into any role) and Gwyneth Paltrow’s character Pepper, Mickey Rourke joins the cast as evil Russian Ivan Vanko, as well as Scarlett Johansson (who plays Pepper’s mysterious assistant and is an agent) and Samuel L. Jackson (as Nick Fury).

Contrary to what I was expecting, there actually was a strong plot to build this sequel on. Iron Man 2 begins with Tony Stark not wanting to turn in his suit to the authorities and claims no other country will be able to build the technology for a number of years. There of course, is the problem, as we saw in the first film, it’s not going to be too hard for someone else to eventually replicate the suit’s technology. Tony Stark is not a scientific genius (I think in this case Ivan Vanko is probably closer). So we know that Stark’s technology is not untouchable. So there lies the main crux of the story. Couple that with the rival weapon manufacturer Justin Hammer, who helps release the evil Vanko out of jail to help him build his own iron men, and you’ve got yourself an interesting plot. And fortunately, by the end of the film, Tony is able to invent a new element to get himself one step ahead again. Luckily, too he has a sidekick because it would be really unrealistic for Iron Man to defeat all those drones, in the final battle near the end, singlehandedly (not that the scenario is realistic itself − although maybe in the future).

Interestingly, I noticed that despite Russians often being cast as ‘bad guys’ in many Hollywood action films, Iron Man 2 realistically showed that conflict quite often comes from within as well. In other words, the film presents America as its own biggest enemy. World peace is not a simple thing that can be acquired (unlike perhaps some other superhero films suggest), which I think ultimately makes the plot a lot stronger and believable.

Another thing which probably has helped propel the Iron Man franchise to its amazing success is that it’s essentially about a real guy who becomes a hero − and from then on still remains ‘real’. It’s not a Batman or Superman who has this ‘super’ element inside them − for Tony (yes, although he does have the iron man heart), he is essentially powerless without the iron man suit. Tony Stark clearly has a big ego and loves the attention he gets but he also makes mistakes and has significant character flaws (i.e the amusing scenes of the drunk iron man at Stark’s birthday). He is more accessible and relatable to public (and more broadly, to the audience of the film) through his human personality and charm. So ultimately Tony Stark is not the hero, the suit is. And that makes for a great film.

5/5

The Little Match Girl (La Petite Merchance D’allumettes) (Jean Epstein, 1928)

2010-05-10T14:30:00.002+10:00

A slightly haunting film (although the Christensen fable it’s based on isn’t exactly happy) yet interestingly shot. The film took a while to get my attention and then near the end lost it again. I particularly liked the film when the little match girl is hallucinating about being in the toy store:

Some of the characters and effects used were appealing. For instance, the dolls and the toy soldiers were cleverly done. As were the effects of the horses galloping and the little match girl (whose name I believe is Karen)’s hallucinations of Christmas trees. Since I didn’t really remember much about the famous tale, I wasn’t sure what to expect. However, it was a sweet yet tragic little piece that was skilfully adapted into a half-hour film.

3/5

Charleston Parade (Sur un air de Charleston) (Jean Epstein, 1927)

2010-05-09T15:30:00.000+10:00

“This is how white Aborigines culture became fashionable in Africa”– the final line that reflects the plain peculiarity of this film. To sum up, it’s about a man whose face is painted black, in a spaceship that lands on an unknown island where he meets a girl, who loves dancing and who teaches him, while in exchange he introduces her to the telephone. When he mentions that she’ll eat him, she replies that “black meat makes me sick”– something I don’t think you’d find in many films today! Funny thing is that it’s set in 2028 but aside from that there isn’t much of a plot. However, we see some interesting editing, with slow motion and speeding up, as well as peepholes that give the impression we can see inside a small enclosed cylindrical room where the girl hides at first. There is a lot of dancing (I was half expecting some accompanying music to start playing in this silent film) but something about that girl just freaks me out and distracts me from the strangely painted black-faced man.

2/5

Sherlock Holmes (Guy Ritchie, 2009)

2010-05-08T21:09:00.001+10:00

Better than I expected (and at the least I expected was a pretty good film). With the versatile and talented Robert Downey Jr at the helm of what is another remake, you can be assured of a quality performance. But what made this film rise above the multitude other film remakes is something I’ve been thinking about since I first watched it in the cinema.

First of all, there is a decent plot full of twists and constant conflict which keeps the film moving. The film begins with Sherlock and newly-engaged assistant Watson, played by the quite adept Jude Law, catching the serial killer Lord Blackwood, who appears to be some kind of sorcerer. Having warned Holmes before his hanging, Blackwood then mysteriously rises from the grave and continues his mission. The main storyline follows Holmes and Watson as they attempt to unravel this mystery and stop Lord Blackwood before he can target the British Parliament. There is no lack of material in the storyline and the audience is constantly kept in awe of Sherlock’s skills of observation and deduction.

Downey plays the role of Sherlock Holmes very nicely − he is perfectly suited to the role of a quirky yet charming detective. Add this to a strong supporting cast featuring Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong and Hans Matheson, and you’ve got yourself some great characters.

One of the reasons this film works so well is because it combines so many different elements − there really is something for everyone. You have intriguing characters (well, Holmes is at least), plenty of action (whether explosions or fights, such as the highly entertaining scene when Holmes is fighting in the ring), plenty of humour (both from Holmes’ witty dialogue and slapstick moments), a complex romance (between Rachel McAdams’s character Irene Adler and Holmes), not to mention the strong bond between Holmes and Watson who have a close relationship and act like a bickering married couple at times. The film also gives audiences suspense and mystery, and the way Holmes is able to so brilliantly come to instant conclusions is also a bonus appealing to the audience’s love of discovery (such as learning how to fake death). So there are clearly a lot of reasons to like this film. It combines many different strengths into one engaging and amusing tale - a feat I think is not often achieved in films nowadays.

5/5

Two or Three Things I Know About Her (2 Ou 3 Choses Que Je Sais D’elle) (Jean-Luc Godard, 1966)

2010-05-07T11:31:00.000+10:00

Now to a very different type of film. In fact, dubbed as “a leading force of the French New Wave” on the DVD cover. Colour, full of colour. (Not surprising, since it was made in the 60s). I would describe it as a sort of experimental documentary. It mainly followed the main character Juliette as she resorted to working the streets to earn a living. Godard seems to often reference this subject, such as in his film Vivre sa Vie.

In contrast to Italian neorealism (though supposedly French New Wave stemmed form Italian neorealism?), this film was full of voice-overs (mostly whispered), which directed and described the action (such as “She is turning left but it is not significant”), as well as interacted with the character when they addressed the camera. Also, there were colourful (of course!) intertitles and headings about industrial society and class. The film was very political and philosophical and it was challenging to grasp what it was dealing with, but I believe that there is no right way and you can in fact interpret it different ways. It pondered society and its future, time and analysed language and thought. At one point, the voice-over considers “What is art? Form becoming style, but the style is the man. Therefore, art is the humanising of forms.”

It’s interesting how Godard is commenting on what is happening both inside and outside the film. There were lines from Brecht (“Actors should quote”) and references to someone looking like Chekhov’s daughter or Nanook’s sister (from Robert Flaherty’s documentary Nanook of the North). Also, the Vietnam war made up a lot of the context, with Juliette’s husband listening to a radio about the war and various photographs shown − it reminds me of Tout va bien. Juliette has an interesting discussion with her son about dreams, where he says he dreamt of two twins who turn out to be North and South Vietnam uniting (talk about an intelligent kid!). He then asks his, “What is language, mummy?”, to which she say, “The house man lives in”. This kind of limiting of language is often referred to in the film, as if saying that perhaps images (and thus, cinema) are more capable of describing because with words you have to choose and can’t say everything at once (this is explored in the scene Juliette visits her husband at the garage and the voice-over questions how to describe what is happening − to mention the leaves on the tree?). An interesting phrase which is repeated is “landscape is like a face” − and that really lends itself to many ideas and interpretations.

There was a lot of original camera work (something I can always count on Godard to deliver). For instance, the camera seemed to spend ages in front of characters, like it was almost exhausting and seemed slow and tedious, particularly when the character was soliloquising? with the camera about some philosophical notion. I really began to notice this when Juliette’s husband is sitting near a stranger in a café, waiting for her and the camera is focused on the stranger for what seems a minute or even longer. Then suddenly the husband says, “people never really talk in films” and pretty much dissects what it takes to have a conversation. There is a lot of self-referentiality, as well, and I like how near the beginning, when we see Juliette through the window walking outside, a man starts reading to Juliette’s daughter about a lady walking then “hatching eggs” (quite a coincidence with her street job). I also like how the camera did a 360-degree pan when Juliette was standing among some very modern-looking yet identical apartments (when she made the Chekhov and Nanook references). Also, there were many shots of cranes and construction work − I’m not sure if this is symbolic of a rebuilding of society or hinting at the constituents of life. While Juliette was in the café, a few times the camera cuts to just a CU shot of coffee with the froth almost gone or what looks like coke with bubbles, and we hear talks about the world, with the swirls in the cup almost like a mini cosmic galaxy.

Often when there was music playing, there was no natural atmospheric sound, something which was significant to me, seeing as though in my journalism studies we aim for realism by using diegetic sound − in this instance it gave the film an unreal quality. In addition, Godard inserts a still image of a cartoon strip, later having one of the characters echo this by saying society is like living in a comic strip. Also, I like the scene when we see the two men and what seems like one of them is just picking from a huge pile of books in front of them and reading random lines, which the other man is writing down. It reminds me of the reading from books in Une femme est une femme. In fact, the French are represented as quite well-read, inquisitive, philosophical individuals − no matter what situation they’re in (such as with a customer), they are reading books or pondering life. That’s another feature I find intriguing and although this wasn’t the best Godard film I’ve seen, I still find I’m very biased towards him due to the way he just approaches cinema so unlike any other director I’ve seen.

3.5/5

The 39 Steps (Alfred Hitchcock, 1935)

2010-05-06T14:00:00.000+10:00

I think this is the second Hitchcock film I’ve seen (after Birds) and I’m very happy with my experience. Interestingly, I noticed that the act of film itself is often referenced (maybe I’ve been watching too much Godard!), such as at the beginning when Robert Hannay (Robert Donat) asks Annabella if she’s an actress and she says no. Hitchcock is truly the ‘master of suspense’ − I got that just from watching two of his films. It’s amazing how without music (until Pamela realises Hannay’s innocent), Hitchcock manages to build up such tension and excitement. The audience is at an advantage and it’s like you know what the character is feeling and have a sense of what could happen but are never sure until it does. Although there were plenty of excellent surprises. I was just travelling along, getting into the characters, when suddenly the man Hannay believes is on his side, reveals that he has a little finger − that was an “Oh my gosh” moment for me. It was just fabulously done − everything just crashed around me.

It was an interesting plot about a secret agent, Annabella, who is stabbed at Hannay’s house and as he runs away and is suspected of her murder, he tries to find the person she was looking for, to prevent the secret of The 39 Steps from being revealed. (The 39 Steps turns out to be the name of a group of secret agents). But it’s a great story about an innocent man forced to act as if he is guilty, never knowing who to trust (and often trusting the wrong people). It is both a thriller, as well as a comedy − I doubted this classification labelled on the DVD at first but as the film progressed it all made sense. Some amusing moments, such as physical comedy when Hannay’s escaping with Pamela in handcuffs and they sort of run into the fence (with Pamela going under and Hannay trying to go over). Also, I really liked the scene when they are staying in a Scottish motel and are chained to each other but try to hide it from the motel owners. The motel owner walks out and tells her husband, the young couple are so “in love with each other”, and then we suddenly cut to Hannay and Pamela arguing, trying to break apart. That was a very clever use of juxtaposition of shots, simple but effective. The same goes for when Hannay (still handcuffed) asks Pamela, “can I be of any assistance?” when she tries to take off her stockings, and ends up holding a sandwich for her, after stroking her leg (as his hand was joined to hers). Robert Donat was very entertaining − he just had this simple delivery that was so honest but very light-hearted, particularly when he was sarcastically talking about his life as a murderer, though Pamela believes he is. I really liked his performance, the actor seemed really familiar and quite a charming character − I’m definitely going to look at some of his other films.

After reading articles, such as Laura Mulvey’s "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema", which talks about feminism and the role of women in films (she focuses on Hitchcock as one of her examples), I can see how this film would relate to some of her arguments − even though it was made in the 1930s, before the article and before any real notions of feminism gained momentum. Interestingly, Hitchcock decides to insert the female character of Annabella, though there is no female in the novel. However, the fact she gets killed off in the beginning of the film was quite unexpected for me. There is a close call when Hannay is shot but survives thanks to a book in his jacket. Also, the humour present when Hannay asks the milkman if he can borrow his clothes to sneak out of his apartment kind of suggests a certain view of females: first he honestly tells the man about the dead woman in his room and the spies waiting outside to which the milkman is clearly not convinced. However, when Hannay rattles off some tale about having an affair with a married woman and the two men outside were her brother and husband, the milkman instantly laughs and offers his clothes, as if to say that is an acceptable act. (I have to say that scene with the two men waiting in the street outside Hannay’s apartment were really freaky, very well done because there was definitely an eerie and unsafe mood set up.

I absolutely love the fact that one of the special features is a PDF copy of the script for the film (looks like the original scanned). Maybe next time I watch this, I will follow with the script because it is just a concrete piece of film before its conception. The other special feature I really liked was the “On Location” segment with Robert Powell, who looked at some of the places the film (plus the two other films of similar names, made later on) was filmed. I think I will look into this program because it’s a great little piece of trivia wonderful for film buffs who want to get that little bit extra about their favourite films. (For instance, he points out how Hitchcock used trains often in his films, which I’m going to try and spot next time I watch one of his films).
So, like I said, after a satisfying first experience, I’m definitely looking forward to watching more of Hitchcock’s work.

4/5

Good Night and Good Luck (George Clooney, 2005)

2010-05-05T13:23:00.002+10:00

I’ve been wanted to watch this for a while and though I wasn’t entirely in the mood for watching what I thought would be a hard-hitting, drier type of movie, I am glad to say that it surpassed my expectations and I really enjoyed it. Not only was there a really capable cast (Clooney, Downey and David Strathairn, who really suits the 1950s journo look) but it was semi-documentary, based on true events in journalism and political history.

It's a black and white film, set in the 1950s, when TV broadcasting journalism was taking off and was about news anchor Edward R. Murrow (Strathairn) and his producer, Fred Friendly (Clooney), along with reporter Joseph Wershba (Downey), who defy corporate and sponsor pressure at the CBS newsroom and report on and editorialise stories about U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin. At a time when the threat and fear of communism was high, McCarthy set on a crusade to investigate and get rid of Communist-aligned individuals. Murrow first defends Milo Radulovich, who was facing separation from the U.S. Air Force because of his sister's political leanings and because his father subscribed to a Serbian newspaper. A very public feud develops when McCarthy responds by accusing Murrow of being a communist and digging up some specks of his past that may in some way be interpreted as linked to communism. However, the film ends with the CBS team successfully bringing down Senator McCarthy in what I think is a crucial victory in journalism’s history.

Other events in the plot include Wershba and his fellow-journalist wife having to hide their marriage to save their jobs (though everyone knows they are married) and the suicide of Don Hollenbeck, who was accused of being a Communist. The film is mostly a large flashback, bookended by a speech given by Murrow to the Radio and Television News Directors Association in 1958, in which Murrow harshly cautions his audience about ignoring the potential of television to inform and educate the public.

It’s interesting how Clooney portrays a journalist as I have read his dad was a TV journalist (so maybe it’s a way of getting to live out that other dream, although apparently he was a broadcaster at one point but quit his job to avoid competition with his father). The film's tone, the fact it's shot in black and white, as well as its depiction of one of journalism's greatest victories really presents it as a nostalgic film, that seems to lament what journalism used to be. Anyway, this film is definitely worth watching and I’ll be sure to have another look at it in the future.

4/5

Roma, Citta Aperta (Open City) (Roberto Rossellini, 1945)

2010-05-04T12:00:00.000+10:00

Acclaimed as “Europe’s first post-war masterpiece” on the DVD cover, I was curious to see whether this neorealist classic would live up to my expectations. And after having only watched Journey to Italy, it’s clear that I didn’t have a strong Rossellini foundation upon which to judge this movie– so this was going to be the one which would decide once and for all if I was a fan of R.R. And the verdict is: it was worth watching. The film took a while to engage me but once it did it was intriguing. It was a good taste of neorealism and I am particularly attracted to the dynamics of acting involved, where the whole ensemble proved as important together, rather than one main “star” performer. This is also seen in the way Pina, the widowed mother we meet at the beginning, is shockingly killed half-way into the film. Thus, we are left without the ‘protagonist’ but only then do we see the importance of the priest and the other cast members − and I use the term “cast” loosely, as it was a very natural, unscripted type of impression. The film really brings home the hard truth of death, which can happen to anyone − something largely ignored in Hollywood films and the classic films at the time.

On the topic of time, the film was made at the end of the war and got me thinking about how films were made at times of national emergency and danger. There would be plenty of risks involved when filming. Nevertheless, I think the film gave me a good experience of an Italian film that is unlike most movies I have watched and it deserves the legacy it has. I didn’t know what to expect with Italian neorealism − it almost seemed like an oxymoron. Aren’t Italians the culture known for their dramatic, over-the-top, theatrical hand gestures, expressions and just their vivid tone of voice? In this film the individuals seemed toned down a lot of the time, well in comparison with the Italians I know. (Also, on the note, I have to admit I was confused when I first saw the Gestapo, as he spoke Italian I wasn’t sure who’s side he was on initially. It’s funny how that’s often not the case in Hollywood films, where everyone usually speaks the native language of the film and so you can just sense the evil of “the other side”.) However, I saw the true “Italianism” shine through in animated scenes of anger throughout the movie and it sort of made it more believable I suppose.

The dialogue was actually quite poignant. (Though it annoyed me that not every line was subtitled). There were more light-hearted moments, sort of a light and shade film, such as when the priest is with the paralysed man and the audience realises he hit the man over the head to shut him up. And there were the usual themes such as love vs. money, with Pina’s luxury-loving sister declaring she loved no one. Also, since I watched the version mastered from the 35mm archive print, I have to say the film kept its newsreel-footage quality, as well as some interesting camera work. In particular, the scene with the priest and the boy hastily walking up the stairs away from the advancing Germans, with the camera becoming very shaky and almost spinning around as we view them from below − it really added to the tension. Another different aspect was the music which just cut off in certain scenes, instead of fading away. Overall, it was clearly a film with many appealing elements that combined to give a glimpse into what life may have been like for these people of Italy in World War II.

3.5/5

Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, 1941)

2010-05-03T14:40:00.001+10:00

Well, this was a refresher − a look back at a film that I first watched many years ago when I must admit, it wasn’t memorable as an entertaining film. But, happy to say that I enjoyed it much more this time around (and not only because of my increased passion for the media industry, although this film doesn’t show the industry in the most positive light anyway). Basically the story begins with news of the death of Charles Foster Kane, million-dollar publisher. We see what is a news story about it that provides a good background to his life. However, most of the film focuses on a reporter from Kane’s own The Inquirer newspaper talking to his best friends and ex-wife and butler, etc, trying to find out what “rosebud” means to Kane. (I say “story” because there isn’t that much of a plot – it makes me think of Gilles Deleuze’s idea of the time-image and neorealist films). Rosebud is of course, the last word Kane said before he died and dropped the snowglobe on the floor in this famous scene:

The film ends when we see a sled with the word “Rosebud” on it being burned. So the whole film is kind of like a jigsaw (what second wife Samantha is seen doing near the end of the film − clearly a metaphor) full of flashbacks that are intertwined as the reporter speaks to each of the characters. We never find out the significance of Rosebud − it was on the sled which we see earlier when he’s still a young boy living with his parents (so like neorealism, there isn’t really any resolution and we just get a glimpse of what is happening, how life is unravelling). Though the fact that the audience is privy to this last clue kind of takes it away from neorealism, where both the audience and characters are living and experiencing the moment as it comes. Anyway, this makes for an interesting way of telling the story, and I would assume quite a novel technique for that time (arguably a precursor to neorealism, which would make perfect sense).

But I can see the “realism” André Bazin points out in “An Aesthetic of Reality: Neorealism”, from his book What is Cinema? Vol II. There is use of depth of focus, such as in the scene where his second wife Samantha overdosing on medication and we see Kane enter the room in the background (in focus), as well as the bottle of medication in the foreground (also in focus). In addition, there are long takes without cutting that show what I would call the “banal”, or everyday, (well, as "everyday" as you can get for a millionaire media mogul). These include instances of individuals talking where we only get one camera angle for a while. Even though there are plenty of fades used, the scene where Samantha is putting together pieces of a puzzle can be compared to these actionless, banal moments − we still get a sense of that even though the fade is being used. It seems natural and not as manipulated in a way.

By the way, I have to say Orson Welles’ acting was really convincing − Kane is a complex yet convincing character (not too mention sort of handsome when he’s young − he ages badly). The audience kind of feels for him at moments but then again we’re repelled by his need to have everyone love him, “on his terms”. So we’re kind of like the public in the film − love him and hate him. In effect, this is a film about love as much as about power and definitely an intriguing peek at the media industry too (and all the ethics of objectivity and honesty). Classic.

4/5

Tout va Bien (Everything’s alright) (Jean-Luc Godard and Jean-Pierre Gorin, 1972)

2010-05-02T15:30:00.001+10:00

A great film that has really established Jean-Luc Godard as one of my favourite filmmakers. Something that featured prominently in this film was the amazing camerawork. I’m always intrigued by unique and original camera movement and angles, which this film had plenty of − it shows an “out of the box” way of thinking from Godard. Instances of this were in the supermarket scene, when the camera was tracking from left to right as the journalist character played by Jane Fonda walked along the cash registers and at the beginning in the factory, we see a cutaway of all the rooms, as if we were watching the separate areas of a doll house (remind me of Jacques Tati’s Playtime − another film I admire for it’s ingenuity). In addition, there were monologues by the main characters as if they were being interviewed by the camera and when certain people spoke they may not have even been in the frame, or hidden behind someone else, such as the times when the characters on the screen were almost frozen looking at the speaker who was off camera. Although the longer the takes were, the sort of more frustrating it became at times but overall I like this approach and think it very effective and memorable. The film dealt with a variety of topics, from the strike at the sausage factory, to tension in the marriage between the journalist and her filmmaker husband, as well as their respective professions. So with an unforgettable first impression, Tout va Bien becomes one of my favourite films of all times for its cleverness, simplicity and entertainment value.

I also really liked the special features on the DVD too, including interviews with directors, as well as Letter to Jane (1972) Jean-Luc Godard and Jean-Pierre Gorin’s 52-minute postscript to Tout va bien, 1972 video interview excerpt with Jean-Luc Godard, new video interview with Jean-Pierre Gorin, and a 40-page booklet with essays by film critics J. Hoberman and Kent Jones, and Godard biographer Colin MacCabe, plus excerpts from a 1972 interview with Gorin and Godard.

4.5/5

Tim Burton's coming to town!

2010-05-01T15:00:00.000+10:00

Just thought I'd mention the fact my favourite director, Tim Burton, is coming to Melbourne in June to coincide with his exhibition at ACMI (Australian Centre for the Moving Image).

Tim Burton: The Exhibition will be on show from 24th June to 10th October, direct from the The Museum of Modern Art, New York, with the director also flying down to Melbourne to appear at two discussion sessions open to the public.

The exhibition will feature over 700 works, including paintings, drawings, puppets, costumes, storyboards and film from Burton's various projects over the years.

ACMI's hosted a number of interesting and popular exhibitions, such as Pixar: 20 Years of Animation and Game On (and just the other day I went to see Adam Elliot's Mary and Max exhibition), though I think Burton's exhibition could attract the biggest attendance yet.

It's great to see ACMI drawing such international names and exhibitions to Melbourne, and similarly to last year with the National Gallery of Victoria's popular Salvador Dali exhibition, I think the Tim Burton retrospective will provide an invigorating boost for Melbourne's cultural scene.

Alice in Wonderland (Tim Burton, 2010)

2010-05-01T13:00:00.002+10:00

This review was originally written on March 4th, 2010 on my other blog, with some comments I’ve added since then:

"Curiouser and curiouser."

That's exactly how I'd describe Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. Today it was released in Australian cinemas and of course, being in the vicinity of a cinema, I couldn't resist going in and watching Johnny Depp's latest work of brilliance. Seriously, that man can put in a quality performance, no matter what role he's playing. I knew this was going to end up as one of my favourite movies − my favourite actor and director teaming up again in a film based on one of my favourite stories − so that's already a recipe for success.

Nevertheless, I cast my critical eye over it as soon as I walked out of the theatre. Firstly, of course, the stand-out performance is Depp. Mia Wasikowska − well, I was glad to have a Polish-Aussie girl (like me) up there on the international big screen. It was such a great opportunity for her but you have to admit, casting Depp in the role of the Mad Hatter is going to steal the limelight − just a little bit. Wasikowska played the part of Alice well, but ultimately it's Depp's performance that will make a bigger impact. (Oh and I have to mention the dance he does at the end − completely mad/unexpected/entertaining!)

The casting for the film was quite good − with Burton's partner Helena Bonham Carter as the big-headed (literally!) Red Queen, Anne Hathaway as the extremely pale White Queen, Matt Lucas as the amusing Tweedledee/Tweedledum, Alan Rickman as the voice of the Blue Caterpillar and Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat. Plus, the wonderful danny Elfman as composer. I have to say, the music in Alice in Wonderland was very reminiscent of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. After I watched Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, I just had to get the soundtrack − that's how big of an impact it had on me. However, with Alice in Wonderland, well it just wasn't as good (but still pretty good! :D).

The environment was also really engrossing for me − I just love the worlds Tim Burton creates. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was amazing. Although not as colourful and vivid as maybe the book might have described, Underland (that is what it's actually called) has a dark, Gothic touch to it. I could just sit in a cinema for hours on end, simply watching images from Burton's imagined worlds.

So I guess that brings me to the actual plot. As a matter of fact, this is probably my biggest criticism (if I were to be really critical). Because the film is not actually a remake of the novel 'Alice in Wonderland' (but more of a combination of that novel and Lewis Carroll's lesser known sequel 'Through the Looking-Glass'). I felt it didn't have that same magical effect as perhaps a remake of the first novel might have. Watching this film made me really nostalgic and I have the sudden urge to re-read the novel and watch all earlier versions of the film. However, the fact that it's Alice's second visit and this time she has to slay a Jabberwock (the Red Queen's dragon), just made it stray less from children's story to more of an experimentation/action film.

Anyway, even though I suppose this review has pretty much highlighted more problems than positives of Alice in Wonderland, you can be sure that it is worth watching − even just to see it from Burton's perspective.

4/5

Wild at Heart (David Lynch, 1990)

2010-04-30T11:55:00.003+10:00

Well, there goes quite a weird yet strangely engaging film. I don’t think I’ve seen any David Lynch films before but I quite like this one. It’s like in a similar vein to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. The movie has really changed my views of Laura Dern (from Jurassic Park), who played the main character Lulu, as well as a youthful and playful Nicolas Cage (as Sailor), who really demonstrates his raw energy and passion in this film. The two play young lovers (whose relationship is disapproved of by the girl’s mother) and they are essentially chased around the US by her mother, a hitman hired by her, as well as the wicked witch of the west and several gangsters. Yes, it sounds crazy and was not the clear and straightforward at all. Although there wasn’t really much more in the plot, it was the various characters and personalities they encounter on their road trip. The wicked witch and the good witch that Nicolas Cage encounters at the end of the film establish this sort of Wizard of Oz metaphor throughout the film. Laura Dern’s character snaps her red heels together at one point when she is longing for Nicolas Cage’s character to return. Compared to her relatively passive role in Jurassic Park, in this film she is a rebellious 20-year-old girl, complete with criminal boyfriend, red lipstick, blonde curls and racy lingerie. I have to say the love scenes did really distance me from what otherwise was a film that I enjoyed for its originality and just plain weirdness.

And the final scene is just amazing. I’ve seen it before and was looking forward to it the whole movie but it’s when Nicolas Cage serenades Laura Dern, holding her in his arms and singing a rendition of Elvis Presley’s “Love Me Tender” which just gives me goosebumps:

I was thinking what would’ve compelled him to act in this film and I’m sure the opportunity to sing Elvis (as I know he is a huge fan), as well as sort of speak with that Elvis voice and dress in a snakeskin jacket − well, enough said. But it was definitely a film that changed my opinion, in fact, broadened my impression of both actors and I think is a film that everyone should see if they want to see some raw acting talent clearly having fun filming this movie.

3.5/5

Le notti bianche (White Nights) (Luchino Visconti, 1957)

2010-04-29T14:20:00.011+10:00

This was the first Visconti film I’ve watched so I wasn’t sure what to expect. However, I can say that I enjoyed this film − it was a little different to what I thought would happen but I guess that made it interesting. Firstly, I have to say the character Natalia, played by Maria Schell really appealed to me. (She reminded me of Emma Watson (Hermoine Granger in Harry Potter) − she just looked so alike!) I think this lady is a great actress, full of energy and emotion − just like an innocent little child and I sort of felt I could relate to her. Actually the whole movie was really quite dramatic and expressive − I don’t know if that’s a feature of Italian films, seeing as though the language itself is full of and gestures but regardless this film was full of spirit.

On the topic of characters though, I admit I couldn’t sympathise or relate to Jean Marais, who played Natalia’s dream lover − he just seemed older and too mature for her and maybe even slightly suspicious or evil. As a result, I didn’t really want it to end with Natalia going back to him but I guess that was a twist in what I thought was an otherwise traditional narrative. I eventually sympathised for Mario (played by the amazing Marcello Mastroianni) who fell in love with her, however, it took a while at the beginning of the film to finally draw me in to his character. I just felt he kept changing from a rebellious almost womaniser-type of man to a sensitive lovesick individual. I thought at the end they would be together but it was kind of a sad ending. Even though I kept expecting to see Natalia’s dream lover walk into the scene at any moment, by the final scene I was almost convinced he wasn’t − until he came! So after expecting him to first come back for, then as a man who won’t keep his promise, I guess he did love her but it just doesn’t sit well with me. And all that we see Mario leave with is a dog, like the dog he met at the start of the film − I don’t know if that’s the company he wanted. Speaking of the beginning of the movie, I felt it took a while to bring some relevant action in and I don’t know if it was just my screen but the setting seemed really dark and maybe a little bland and repetitive. However, I’m not familiar with Italian towns so I wasn’t sure how to view it. It was a “misty, dreamlike” film and I particularly liked the flashback scenes. Also, good to see a little bit of comedy, mostly in part due to Natalia’s granny, whose amusing Italian utterances gave the film some light-hearted humour.

I’m now curious to read the Dostoevsky short story this is based on because it did seem a bit different from usual tales you see on the screen and something that I’d enjoy − also would be good to see how it was adapted for a film. A good introduction to Visconti films and I look forward to watching more of his works. Overall, pleased with this film about two dreamers, full of emotion, some poignancy and I guess the ending was more realistic showing that true love doesn’t just disappear easily whenever we want it to.

4/5

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (Terry Gilliam, 1998)

2010-04-28T14:40:00.001+10:00

It just can’t get any better. What a strange, surreal, fantastic experience. I don’t remember liking the film this much the first time I saw it (this being the second time). I think that that having seen all the avant-garde and experimental films I have, that in hindsight this movie isn’t that crazy at all − it’s all to do with perception. (Maybe also having now finished my journalism degree I can relate more to the character?) Actually, I think it’s because I have really matured as a film-goer. While the first time I may have been a little put-off by Depp’s baldness and what was for me at the time, extreme drug taking and bizarre cinematography, now I see that the filmmaker has to take part in the movie as well. This one was genius! And it was the most thrilling feeling − probably the closest you can get to having this feeling without actually taking drugs. (Here's the trailer for the film.)

My opinion of Hunter S. Thompson has also changed. It’s like it’s suddenly dawned on me − Johnny Depp was right in admiring this novelist. Some of his descriptions, like the one about the wave crashing in San Francisco, were really poetic. While going over some of the quotes from the film, I notice that Thompson wrote in a very energetic way, using lots of questions − his style is quite intriguing. The whole film was imagination and creativity mixed with poetry. Now I really want to read the novel. I also have to mention a strong factor in my enjoyment of this film was the soundtrack. From my first time watching it, I had got the song “Viva Las Vegas” but now with Rolling Stones, a remake of “My Favourite Things” (from The Sound of Music) that played at the start, Tom Jones’ “She’s a Lady”, some Bob Dylan and plenty of other groovers, this film really made me feel like I was in the ‘70s, experiencing an almighty high.

5/5

La Vita è Bella (Life is beautiful) (Roberto Benigni, 1997)

2010-04-27T12:45:00.001+10:00

Bongiorno principessa! Honestly, I didn’t know much about this film before I saw it. I was expecting something about a Holocaust and from the title, well, naturally I thought it was going to be a tragic drama. I’m glad to say that it is one of the funniest and most amazing films I’ve ever seen. After watching it, I see it is classified as a tragicomedy and I wholeheartedly agree. At the beginning when we see Roberto Benigni’s character goofing off almost like an Inspector Clousseau (Pink Panther)/Mr.Bean hybrid, I was starting to rethink whether I was mistaken that such a comedic performance could possibly incorporate the Holocaust in its storyline. That’s what I really admired about this film − it is in fact really heartbreaking but the film manages to deal with such a serious topic and add some life and love and spirit, yet never compromise or trivialise its subject matter. And of course, I loved the inspirational character played by Roberto Benigni, who also directed this wonderful film. He was such a lovable, warm character – we need more of this type of optimism in the world, no matter what tragedy you’re in. And to those yet to see this film who may question the humour, it actually makes it more painful to watch this innocence have to suffer – he knows and we know too – of the horror that awaits but he is one who is not willing to let the human spirit die, though his body may.

This is one of my favourite scenes in the film – when Guido (Roberto Benigni) and his son are sent to a concentration camp, in order to keep the boy's spirits up, Guido tries to convince his young son that it is all just a game:

Although, at times I doubted the authenticity of the situation, such as when the German official stops the train to let his wife on or when the American stops the tank for the boy – that just seemed a little like the world revolved around this family and really, I believe they would’ve been treated more insignificantly in this instance. Nevertheless, these are really such trivialities in an otherwise touching and – although the phrase is cliché – heart-warming tale. It’s great that it’s the second film I’ve seen in a row that has taken a spot among my favourite movies of all time but now I see the similarities in tackling a common storyline (well, nothing we haven’t heard about before) and constructing it in such a unique and clever manner. Lovely. It seems the less I know about a film the more pleasantly surprised I am but looks like I may be closer to finding a formula for my favourite films: a touch of ingenuity and a dash of humour.

5/5

Russian Ark (Aleksandr Sokurov, 2002)

2010-04-26T10:45:00.003+10:00

Interesting film − I am a fan of films, or directors should I say, that think outside the box. This was apparently the first feature film created in a single take and it sure seemed weird. (You can watch the first part of the film on YouTube). There was something about the fluidity − it was like you constantly had to pay attention and there were no cuts or any time for a “break”. It actually felt like a documentary. And the main character we see (not the filmmaker from whose point of view we see) looked remarkably like Christopher Walken − a little freaky, yet intriguing. A lot of art was in the film. I was very tired so that may have required extra effort to stay awake and there wasn’t really a strong storyline as such. I also didn’t really get the beginning and how the filmmaker ended up there in the first place. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed the different approach. And of course, I loved the costumes and the set of the Heritage Museum! Apparently it took nine months to rehearse but it was well scripted and worth it I believe.

It was wonderful to see history come alive and just to pretend to be there at that time was great. I guess that’s why I feel as if it is more of a documentary because it is objective and showing not really telling us anything. I should probably read up a bit more on Russian history to understand the significance of some of the characters mentioned but I still enjoyed the film without all the knowledge − so hats off to Mr Sokurov for creating an engaging and original way of thinking about film and narrative (or lack of it).

4/5

Que Viva Mexico (Sergei Eisenstein, 1979)

2010-04-25T19:51:00.002+10:00

This half documentary/half fiction film was definitely more engaging that I expected I to be. As a film that Eisenstein was originally unable to finish, Grigory Alexandrov took the task of assembling a version as close to Eisenstein’s vision as possible, many years later. It begins as a look at daily life in Mexico with the celebration and process of marriage for young women wearing gold necklace dowries, in the first part of the film called “Sandunga” (the name of a folk song). Then in the next part, “Fiesta”, we see young conquistadors battling a bull (complete with amusing constructions of shots taken from the point of view of what is clearly, a fake bull), which I have to say made me slightly uncomfortably due to my sympathy for the creature who was being prodded and poked and teased (and I mean, the real animal). Part three is “Maguey” (the cactus), where we see poverty and banal cruelty. It is almost like a mini movie involving a young girl and her lover– when he takes her for approval by the landlord, she ends up being taken advantage of by a drunk then locked away while the boy ends up killed by being buried alive up to his shoulders.

It is a tragedy and definitely not promoting Mexico in its best light but it proved an interesting look at Mexican people and the clothes and environment (those cacti looked fantastic). I can see the similarities of Eisenstein’s skill at portraying class struggle but I got the impression that this wasn’t as political a film as some of his others. Lastly, is an epilogue about the Day of Death festival, which I admire − the way Mexicans first mourn loved ones then mock death and eat sugar skulls and chocolate coffins in a demonstration of their lack of fear of death. The music, which I’m assuming was added by Alexandrov, was also great. I’m curious as to why Mexico was chosen, I mean compared to October and Strike, it just seems like a whole other universe for Eisenstein. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the film and thought it represented Mexican culture in an appealing way most of the time − it makes me wonder how much is really true and as Alexandrov points out at the beginning when he addresses the camera, how much was acted out.

3.5/5

Viaggio in Italia (Journey to Italy) (Roberto Rossellini, 1953)

2010-04-24T11:49:00.002+10:00

An interesting film starring George Sanders and Ingrid Bergman as a husband and wife who are facing some strain on their marriage while on a trip in Italy to receive inheritance. I say interesting because that’s about all there is to the plot but still it gets your attention in a certain way. I mean, there are plenty of long slow scenes with any action, like when the character Katherine Joyce is walking in museums and visiting historical sites in Italy. But what I liked the most was the tension between the couple. The DVD synopsis states: “a marriage is breaking up under the strains of a trip to Italy”, however I didn’t get the impression it was falling apart. I felt it was just a rough patch in a marriage. But it’s quite appealing in the way you can feel that deep down the characters do really love one another. They are both jealous when the other spends time with strangers and consequently argue about it but as the story reveals, they’ve been together for eight years and I think that’s enough to build the basis of a strong relationship. I’m also still trying to figure out its “deliberate rejection of many aspects of ‘classic’ Hollywood narrative” because although there really wasn’t any story, I think it was a conventional ending.

I liked the at-times documentary style filming, particularly at the start when they’re travelling in the car. I didn’t like George Sanders’ character − sometimes was a bit too mean, as Katherine remarked in the film (obviously I sympathised with her).

3.5/5

Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958)

2010-04-23T10:57:00.005+10:00

Well, this was definitely beyond my expectations. I didn’t know what the film was about but I would have never guessed it. A man hires an ex-detective named John “Scottie” Ferguson (and one of his friends), who suffers from vertigo (hence, why he left the detective occupation) to spy on his wife who he believes is possessed by the spirit of Carlotta Valdes who we find out is one of her ancestors. The detective (played by the wonderful James Stewart from the Shop Around the Corner) eventually falls in love with her after saving her from drowning (first suicide attempt) but we see her end up committing suicide by jumping off a church tower. (Actually, later in the film we see that this was in fact staged by the husband as a cover up to murder his wife by throwing her out of the tower.) So Scottie (and at this point, the audience too) doesn’t know this and we see how he is scarred by losing someone he loves. However, then we see a woman who looks like Madeleine but goes by the name of Judy, and he instantly follows her and not surprisingly, falls in love with her. It gets quite ridiculous as he insists the woman dies her hair blonde and wears the same grey suit as Madeleine, as if to fool himself he is with his first love (which the audience learns it is actually Madeleine).

However, everything unravels as we see Judy put on the antique necklace Madeleine wore and suddenly Scottie puts everything together. In one last move, he takes her, against her will, to the top of the tower, where we get the sense he wants to throw her off and thus, complete his cycle of grief and anger for deceiving him. Nevertheless, she professes her love for him and it appears as though he forgives her and they embrace, when suddenly a nun enters the tower, surprising Jude, who steps backwards and falls to her death and we see the film end with the nun whispering “god have mercy” while ringing the clock bell as Scottie stares down in disbelief at his “second chance” once again turned to misery.

Here's the trailer for the film:

It was quite a remarkable film as considering the 1950s audience, I’m surprised to see the issue of suicide in the film − it’s rare even nowadays, and a nun ultimately responsible for a death is pretty much unheard of). The plot is so twisted and complex and far, far, far away from a happy ever after, that I just don’t know how to handle it. If I were to sum up the film in one word it would be obsession: obsession as in love for another person, obsession with recreating and changing the past (shown in his comedic insistence of certain clothes for Judy while at the store, to which the store woman replies, “You really know what you want, don’t you?”).

I liked the vertigo zoom shot downwards really interesting as it sort of aimed to give the impression of feeling faint, as if you were witnessing how a person suffering from vertigo would feel. Also, I liked Scottie’s nightmare sequence, which included red tinges, animation and just his head in the middle of a psychedelic swirl. Hitchcock, well now I really admire his mastery, the way he builds suspense and just you know something will happen but it’s not as predictable as typical Hollywood films and that’s why I liked it.

4/5

Happily Avatar after... or not

2010-04-22T21:06:00.006+10:00

Looks like there is going to be not only a second Avatar film but third as well! According to this article in the Guardian, the second film will be set in the ocean, while the third one is likely to go to another planet.

It's certainly becoming almost common practice now to build on the success of films by adding a sequel... or two. I guess there's the assumption that it's more likely to replicate the success as the concept has already been largely 'tried and tested'.

Nevertheless, I'm not really a big fan of Avatar (see my review of the film here), so I'm hoping the next films will be better (though very rarely sequels are).

A Clockwork Orange (Stanley Kubrick, 1971)

2010-04-22T13:14:00.005+10:00

Very strange yet somehow engaging. The film is basically about a guy named Alex, who is a fan of “ultra-violence” and surprisingly, Beethoven. Anyway, Alex is part of a gang who go around assaulting, stealing and raping people. One night Alex gets caught and goes to jail. There, he becomes the subject of an experimental treatment (aversion therapy) which involves him being tied up to a chair in a cinema with his eyes held open and not being able to move while being subjected to films depicting violence, rape (pretty much all the crimes he has committed). Beforehand, Alex is given an injection of a substance, which starts affecting him when he is in the cinema, making him feel extremely sick and nauseous.

Thus, we eventually (after a fortnight of therapy) see that when Alex sees or even thinks about violence, etc, his body has become so conditioned to having the feeling of sickness accompany these thoughts, that he just collapses on the ground in the state of trauma, unable to function normally − violence ends up making him physically ill. In addition, he feels sick when listening to Beethoven (which before he loved to listen to), as classical music provided the backing track to many of the violent films he was subjected to. So Alex is deemed cured and we see him become what is supposed to be a ‘proper’ citizen. In the end, after Alex attempts suicide to escape the pain, the health minister in charge of the treatment admits it was wrong to use the therapy and we see that Alex is cured − and back to his immoral thoughts.

It was a slow start − it took a bit to get me into the film, seeing as though the nudity and rape at the beginning didn’t exactly draw me into the film. However, it was a darkly satirical and slightly surreal science fiction and being quite a philosophical film, I can see why it has garnered so much attention. The character of Alex deLarge is strangely charismatic and endearing − for the most part. These are the types of films I like: complex and thought-provoking. I’m still undecided if I will see this film again, maybe not for a while.

4/5

Robert Downey Jr as the Wizard of Oz?

2010-04-21T23:20:00.004+10:00

I read an article in the Guardian website about the possibility of Robert Downey Jr playing the Wizard of Oz.

The proposed film would be a prequel to the classic 1939 film with Judy Garland, and is tipped to be called Oz the Great and Powerful.

It's fantastic to see Robert Downey Jr back and having so much success, with films like Iron Man (and the soon-to-be-released Iron Man 2 and 3!).

No doubt seeing him play a wizard (a well-known wizard at that) would be fantastic although it could be very risky to go near such a beloved classic - mixed feelings. Although I suppose it's similar to Johnny Depp's roles in both Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Alice in Wonderland.

Avatar (James Cameron, 2010)

2010-04-21T11:24:00.007+10:00

I have to say, despite the crowds relishing this 3D film and despite it becoming the highest-grossing film ever, I was slightly disappointed by this blockbuster. For one, I don’t know if everyone had the same reaction or just me (seeing as though I’ve been studying so many non-Hollywood films) but the plot was just so incredibly predictable! I mean, even more predictable than usual − it’s like I couldn’t relax and just be engaged by the film as I was just ticking the plot events off as they happened.

In addition, I found the 3D was poor compared to every other 3D film I’ve seen. For instance, in the 3D films at amusement parks, etc, the point of the 3D film is to make audiences jump and the film to seem realistic, as if it’s happening in front of your eyes. I don’t know if maybe it was just my seating in the cinema, but for Avatar, all that was 3D was a few plants and even then it looked like two layers of cardboard cut-out, with a background than a foreground. And that is the extent of the 3D. Really, the film could’ve taken advantage of this aspect even more. Also, I wasn’t expecting it to be quite an environmental film, but I guess that’s good as it demonstrated the importance of looking after primitive rainforests and species. Anyway, I still probably gave the film a high rating. It was ok but I probably wouldn’t watch it again. I already knew what was going to happen before I watched it the first time, so I can’t imagine how even more predictable and unengaging it would be the second time around.

3.5/5

Une femme est une femme (Jean-Luc Godard, 1961)

2010-04-20T23:45:00.012+10:00

Only fitting to do my first review on a film by one of my favourite directors, Jean-Luc Godard:

I couldn’t resist watching this film again. So light and funny. But at the same time it really draws a thin line between tragedy and comedy. Une femme est une femme is the second Godard film I watched (Vivre sa vie was the first). After I was just gobsmacked at the pure genius and originality of Vivre sa vie (which I also plan to revisit), I was intrigued by Godard but it wasn’t until this delightful film, which has become one of my favourites, that I decided that Godard was someone I wanted to explore further and I’ve come a long way since I saw it for the first time. For one, I’m much more familiar (if that’s even possible) with Godard’s style and approach to film and although the initial “shock” may have sort of worn off, I’m still in awe of his films, even when I see a film again, but particularly when I watch one of his films I haven’t seen before (and luckily for me, he’s made so many!).

Anyway, this film is pretty much about Angela (Anna Karina) who wants a baby but her boyfriend Émile (played by Jean-Claude Brialy - I think I’m going to check out more of his films) doesn’t want a baby (until the end of the film). It’s full of cutesy expressions, even a musical piece by Anna Karina, taking full advantage of her feminine qualities. Also, I guess at the time I first saw it, I didn’t know about Jean-Paul Belmondo but he played Émile’s friend, who Angela tries to seduce in order to father her child. Of course, one of the most memorable and enjoyable scenes for me, was when Angela and Émile are exchanging insults through book titles - here's a clip from the scene:

When I first saw this film, I remember being really surprised by Godard’s inventive and different use of camera, his constant referencing but I guess watching this film again, although I saw the very cool side tracking shot (that glides across from Émile, who sort of freezes, to Angela’s expression in the kitchen), and a few times the characters addressed the camera, like Jean-Paul Belmondo’s cheeky grin, Angela’s winks and when she says to Émile, “Before we being our farce, we bow to the audience” is a classic), I didn’t feel that there was that much referencing. I guess it’s almost like this is one of his more “normal” films, compared to some of his almost abstract films, such as Le Gai Savoir - or maybe I’m just used to them? Anyway, it was a joy to watch this film once again and I look forward to more viewings!

4.5/5

Welcome!

2010-04-20T17:41:00.004+10:00

Just thought I'd kick things off! I've been considering creating this blog for a while now and I'm glad I finally did - it just seems the obvious thing to do, seeing as though I had been writing and studying cinema for a while now.

I look forward to posting lots of bits and pieces so hopefully you'll find something interesting here to read!