I'll put my cards on the table now - I loved this film. So if you just wanted a quick recommendation, you could just head off to the movies now. The less trusting could read on.
Juno is a teenager who discovers she's pregnant, contemplates an abortion, decides on adoption, goes hunting for adoptive parents and then discovers that the best laid plans go awry when they involve human beings.
Human beings and how they're flawed is partly what this film is about. It's also about love and the strength of relationships. It's definitely life affirming, but don't start reaching for the sick bag. The dialogue is one of the films many strengths, and is witty and understated. There's no screaming or shouting - Paulie (the father of the baby)tells Juno that she broke his heart while managing only to sound mildly aggrieved. Juno's stepmother has some particularly good lines, and we both thought the pharmacist at the beginning of the film was a great character who could have been utilised more.
I liked the soundtrack (folksy) and I liked the fact that Juno and Paulie seemed genuinely young. The contrast between Juno's level of knowledge about pregnancy and that of Vanessa the adoptive mother-to-be was cleverly drawn. I liked how life at high school went on, and how Juno's parents were matter-of-fact. The flowering of Juno and Paulie's relationship was a joy to watch and the not-too-predictable ending made made me cry.
Anne's rating 5/5
I can't help comparing this with last year's Knocked Up -- another American comedy about unplanned pregnancy. Both are comedies about a young woman coping with an unexpected pregnancy. Juno is focused on a laid back, gentle comedy style while Knocked Up has a wide variety of comedy styles. Juno steered closer to the abortion option than Knocked Up (where the A-word wasn't mentioned), but still dealt with the option quite glibly.
Overall Juno is more realistic and a more gentle comedy than Knocked Up.
Ian's rating 4/5
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
No Country for Old Men
The Coen Brothers have a reputation for making unconventional films. But No Country for Old Men starts in a conventional fashion. It opens with voice-over a monologue by Tommy Lee Jones as a Texas country sheriff and a man out deer hunting who comes across the aftermath of a gun-fight. There are dead bodies of men and dogs, abandoned pick-up trucks (one packed with packets of drugs) and a heavy black bag of $100 bills. We don't need any dramatic chords to know that taking home the money is the bad idea that will give us our plot.
Of course there are people on both sides of the drug deal who weren't at the gun fight and in particular Anton Chigurh (played by Javier Bardem) who will kill anyone to get his hands on the money. The Chigurh character is the lynch pin of this movie. His soft voice, his blank expression, his weapon of choice and his relentlessness are compelling and repelling in equal parts. His counterpart is Llewelyn Moss, the deer hunter - played by Josh Brolin, a resourceful, independent and stubborn man and the one we are rooting for in this thriller. Sheriff Bell is on the trail of these two and provides us with the sort of laconic commentary that is second nature to Tommy Lee Jones.
This is a thriller and therefore we know where we are going, and for the most part the Coen Brothers are happy to oblige. There is plenty of violence, close escapes, black humour, taunting and even a "fairy godmother" (Woody Harrelson is a white cowboy hat). But I am happy to say that there is also a musical turn and a very untraditional ending that I won't say any more about.
To sum up: No Country for Old Men is an extremely violent and somewhat unconventional thriller set in west Texas that will leave a lasting impression.
Ian's rating 3.5/5
Of course there are people on both sides of the drug deal who weren't at the gun fight and in particular Anton Chigurh (played by Javier Bardem) who will kill anyone to get his hands on the money. The Chigurh character is the lynch pin of this movie. His soft voice, his blank expression, his weapon of choice and his relentlessness are compelling and repelling in equal parts. His counterpart is Llewelyn Moss, the deer hunter - played by Josh Brolin, a resourceful, independent and stubborn man and the one we are rooting for in this thriller. Sheriff Bell is on the trail of these two and provides us with the sort of laconic commentary that is second nature to Tommy Lee Jones.
This is a thriller and therefore we know where we are going, and for the most part the Coen Brothers are happy to oblige. There is plenty of violence, close escapes, black humour, taunting and even a "fairy godmother" (Woody Harrelson is a white cowboy hat). But I am happy to say that there is also a musical turn and a very untraditional ending that I won't say any more about.
To sum up: No Country for Old Men is an extremely violent and somewhat unconventional thriller set in west Texas that will leave a lasting impression.
Ian's rating 3.5/5
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Lust, Caution
It is the second world war and a pretty young woman uses her sexual attraction to get close to a senior enemy official in order to aid the resistance. This synopsis will be familiar to those who saw Black Book.
In Ang Lee's film the setting is Shanghai under Japanese occupation and being run by the Nanjing regime. The resistance are the Chinese Nationalists -- who later became the government of Taiwan (Ang Lee's homeland). Unlike Black Book, this film explores the delicate process of seducing a highly suspicious, aloof and dangerous married man. To this end the pace of the film is very slow and somewhat non-chronological. The heroine, Chia Chi, is initially a university student and member of a drama club which decides en mass to join the resistance. Their strategy is suitably dramatic, use Chai Chi to infiltrate the Yee household and lure Mr Yee to a place where he can be assassinated.
This is basically a Chinese film, the Japanese are a foreign and menacing presence, and white people are refugees queuing in the streets. I don't know what 1940's Shanghai looked like but the interior shots in the film are often very lush. Understandably the exterior shots look more like sets, some long shots look very fake and 1970s London taxis are substituted for period cars in a couple of places. But I was willing to overlook these things in what was basically character driven film.
What is more difficult to get my head around was the love story. Was it love, lust, acting or sexual relief from the suffocating social environment of occupied Shanghai? Did they both feel the same way about each other? The slow build up of the relationship in Lust, Warning contracts with the instant love affair in Black Book, and general paranoia makes for a more realistic feel.
There is a bit of hype around the sex scenes and whether they were simulated or real. Let me burst some bubbles here: there are about 10 minutes of sex in 2.5 hours of film, it doesn't look any more real than other mainstream movies, there is one violent sex scene (which might account for the R18 rating) and there is more nudity in a British comedy like Death at Funeral than here.
Ian's rating 4.5/5
In Ang Lee's film the setting is Shanghai under Japanese occupation and being run by the Nanjing regime. The resistance are the Chinese Nationalists -- who later became the government of Taiwan (Ang Lee's homeland). Unlike Black Book, this film explores the delicate process of seducing a highly suspicious, aloof and dangerous married man. To this end the pace of the film is very slow and somewhat non-chronological. The heroine, Chia Chi, is initially a university student and member of a drama club which decides en mass to join the resistance. Their strategy is suitably dramatic, use Chai Chi to infiltrate the Yee household and lure Mr Yee to a place where he can be assassinated.
This is basically a Chinese film, the Japanese are a foreign and menacing presence, and white people are refugees queuing in the streets. I don't know what 1940's Shanghai looked like but the interior shots in the film are often very lush. Understandably the exterior shots look more like sets, some long shots look very fake and 1970s London taxis are substituted for period cars in a couple of places. But I was willing to overlook these things in what was basically character driven film.
What is more difficult to get my head around was the love story. Was it love, lust, acting or sexual relief from the suffocating social environment of occupied Shanghai? Did they both feel the same way about each other? The slow build up of the relationship in Lust, Warning contracts with the instant love affair in Black Book, and general paranoia makes for a more realistic feel.
There is a bit of hype around the sex scenes and whether they were simulated or real. Let me burst some bubbles here: there are about 10 minutes of sex in 2.5 hours of film, it doesn't look any more real than other mainstream movies, there is one violent sex scene (which might account for the R18 rating) and there is more nudity in a British comedy like Death at Funeral than here.
Ian's rating 4.5/5
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Charlie Wilson's War
When I first saw this title I wondered if this was some Dad's Army spin-off film. But I was confusing Arthur Wilson, the suave, diffident Home Guard Sergeant for Charlie Wilson the Texas Congressman I've never heard of.
Film is a straightforward telling of the story of how womanizing, hard drinking, happy-go-lucky and not particularly important Congressman, Charlie Wilson, almost single handedly boosted the CIA budget for covert war in Afghanistan from $5 million per year to over $500 million a year ($630 million per year according to Wikipedia) and hence brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The eponymous war (I've never heard anyone actually say that word) refers to both the war Charlie Wilson fought in Washington DC to get funding for Operation Cyclone and also to the proxy US-Soviet war that the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-89) evolved into due to operation Cyclone.
Tom Hanks plays Charlie Wilson as an all-american politician, charming, pleasure seeking, naïve on the surface yet smart enough to smell trouble before it happens and to trade his vote on issues that are not important to himself and his constituents for support for the issues he is keen on. The ultimately important issue is killing Russians.
This is not an action movie.
The war in Afghanistan is presented as linking scenes between the main action in Washington. There are shaky and grainy anonymous Afghans or Soviets firing out of shot. There are reconstructions of Soviet attacks on Afghan villages and later Afghans downing Soviet planes and helicopters in slow motion. There are visits to (less than authentic) refugee camps by some of the characters. But all of this seems to be interludes to punctuate the story.
This is not a romantic movie.
There are plenty of pretty women in the supporting cast led by the queen of pretty women, Julia Roberts, but there is no love match or sex. Just plenty of tight skirts and cleavage leading the eye from one scene to the next and Julia Roberts in a bikini that matches her flowerbeds as background to a phone call -- all eye candy.
This is a political movie.
So it is mostly talk-talk. The visuals are there to provide mes-en scene and keep you interested. The film doesn't try to drive home any political points directly but presents us with a bunch of explicit and implicit contrasts and lets us make our own mind up. I expect that this will tend to re-enforce our existing beliefs rather than change our minds about anything.
For instance the Soviets are shown as evil killers who's main war aim is to kill Afghan civilians. There is an implicit contrast with 2008 where the main killer of Afghan civilians is the US military. If you are a believer in the evilness of communism and the implicit goodness of America then you will be happy that the difference is because the evil Taliban are hiding behind the civilians who are killed by accident and that most of the "civilian" dead are really Taliban anyway. If you are less partisan you will see that the USSR was supporting a regime in Kabul and fighting an asymmetric war against an insurgency funded by enemies of the Soviets with the consequent civilian casualties and today the USA is supporting a regime in Kabul and fighting an asymmetric war against an insurgency funded by enemies of America with the consequent civilian casualties.
If you are too young to remember the politics of the 1980s and are interested in an straightforward American view of that time then go and see the movie. Tom Hanks is at the top of his game. The humour is understated, the politics are un-preachy and everyone is honourable -- pity about the battle scenes.
Ian's rating 3/5
Film is a straightforward telling of the story of how womanizing, hard drinking, happy-go-lucky and not particularly important Congressman, Charlie Wilson, almost single handedly boosted the CIA budget for covert war in Afghanistan from $5 million per year to over $500 million a year ($630 million per year according to Wikipedia) and hence brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The eponymous war (I've never heard anyone actually say that word) refers to both the war Charlie Wilson fought in Washington DC to get funding for Operation Cyclone and also to the proxy US-Soviet war that the Soviet-Afghan war (1979-89) evolved into due to operation Cyclone.
Tom Hanks plays Charlie Wilson as an all-american politician, charming, pleasure seeking, naïve on the surface yet smart enough to smell trouble before it happens and to trade his vote on issues that are not important to himself and his constituents for support for the issues he is keen on. The ultimately important issue is killing Russians.
This is not an action movie.
The war in Afghanistan is presented as linking scenes between the main action in Washington. There are shaky and grainy anonymous Afghans or Soviets firing out of shot. There are reconstructions of Soviet attacks on Afghan villages and later Afghans downing Soviet planes and helicopters in slow motion. There are visits to (less than authentic) refugee camps by some of the characters. But all of this seems to be interludes to punctuate the story.
This is not a romantic movie.
There are plenty of pretty women in the supporting cast led by the queen of pretty women, Julia Roberts, but there is no love match or sex. Just plenty of tight skirts and cleavage leading the eye from one scene to the next and Julia Roberts in a bikini that matches her flowerbeds as background to a phone call -- all eye candy.
This is a political movie.
So it is mostly talk-talk. The visuals are there to provide mes-en scene and keep you interested. The film doesn't try to drive home any political points directly but presents us with a bunch of explicit and implicit contrasts and lets us make our own mind up. I expect that this will tend to re-enforce our existing beliefs rather than change our minds about anything.
For instance the Soviets are shown as evil killers who's main war aim is to kill Afghan civilians. There is an implicit contrast with 2008 where the main killer of Afghan civilians is the US military. If you are a believer in the evilness of communism and the implicit goodness of America then you will be happy that the difference is because the evil Taliban are hiding behind the civilians who are killed by accident and that most of the "civilian" dead are really Taliban anyway. If you are less partisan you will see that the USSR was supporting a regime in Kabul and fighting an asymmetric war against an insurgency funded by enemies of the Soviets with the consequent civilian casualties and today the USA is supporting a regime in Kabul and fighting an asymmetric war against an insurgency funded by enemies of America with the consequent civilian casualties.
If you are too young to remember the politics of the 1980s and are interested in an straightforward American view of that time then go and see the movie. Tom Hanks is at the top of his game. The humour is understated, the politics are un-preachy and everyone is honourable -- pity about the battle scenes.
Ian's rating 3/5
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
We're Here To Help
While not exactly a Love Actually or even a Finding Nemo, We're Here to Help is definitely a feel-good movie and it's nice to know New Zealand can make them. It does have black undertones (you couldn't call it a New Zealand movie without them!) but it's good-humoured and funny and the little guy wins in the end. The style is almost documentary and the humour is deadpan, and the story unfolding creates its own understated drama. The plot is uninspiring on paper (man battles tax department) but you shouldn't let this fool you or keep you away.
There's a lot to enjoy about this film. The credits are done amusingly in the style of an IRD form and there's the soundtrack which features Dave Dobbyn. There's 1990's furniture and office decor to admire and it was good to see Erik Thomson (who plays Dave, the film's main character) working on this side of the Tasman for a change. All the IRD employees are great to watch, with actors Jason Hoyte and John Leigh doing a particularly fine job at being bastards in smarmy self-righteous and smug style. Jason Hoyte gave me much pleasure being smarmy in Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby, so I'm unsurprised at him being good at it. John Leigh being smarmy was a novelty - a bit of a change from being Sparky the mad on Outrageous Fortune, but just as much fun.
Here you see Dave (Erik Thomsen) on the right berating Steve (Jason Hoyte) in their first encounter- an action which he came to regret. And you'll regret not going to this film, so stimulate the economy and the film industry and go.
Anne's rating 4/5. Ian's rating 4/5
There's a lot to enjoy about this film. The credits are done amusingly in the style of an IRD form and there's the soundtrack which features Dave Dobbyn. There's 1990's furniture and office decor to admire and it was good to see Erik Thomson (who plays Dave, the film's main character) working on this side of the Tasman for a change. All the IRD employees are great to watch, with actors Jason Hoyte and John Leigh doing a particularly fine job at being bastards in smarmy self-righteous and smug style. Jason Hoyte gave me much pleasure being smarmy in Seven Periods with Mr Gormsby, so I'm unsurprised at him being good at it. John Leigh being smarmy was a novelty - a bit of a change from being Sparky the mad on Outrageous Fortune, but just as much fun.
Here you see Dave (Erik Thomsen) on the right berating Steve (Jason Hoyte) in their first encounter- an action which he came to regret. And you'll regret not going to this film, so stimulate the economy and the film industry and go.
Anne's rating 4/5. Ian's rating 4/5
The Lodger
Jack the Ripper is a popular subject for film makers and The Lodger (1944) is billed the Wellington Film Society as the third filming of Marie Belloc Lowndes's novel about the Ripper. The film stars the large, soft spoken Laird Cregar as "Slade" who arrives carry a small black bag and inquiring about rooms for rent on the night of the fourth murder. The audience is left in no doubt that Slade is the Ripper and the suspense surrounds how long it'll take the family of the house to figure out what we already know. And will Slade kill Kitty the showgirl or will her sympathetic personality win her a reprieve?
Apparently filmmakers of the time were squeamish about mentioning the word "prostitute" so this Ripper kills female entertainers, because some beautiful "woman of the stage" had led his artist brother astray, which in turn led to his early death.
While Laird Cregar is very watchable as the menacing but sometimes naive Ripper, the best line goes to George Sanders who plays the inspector from Scotland Yard who has invited Kitty for a private tour of the Black Museum and asks her to come to tea with his mother. Kitty ignores his question and asks a series of questions about various artifacts, when she gets to a large poker the inspector tells her a man used it beat his fiancee to death. Kitty asks why and the inspector replies "Probably because she wouldn't answer a perfectly reasonable question". Not the sort of pickup line you hear every day.
(According to Wikipedia the Black Museum was established four years after this film was made!)
Ian's rating: 3.5/5
Apparently filmmakers of the time were squeamish about mentioning the word "prostitute" so this Ripper kills female entertainers, because some beautiful "woman of the stage" had led his artist brother astray, which in turn led to his early death.
While Laird Cregar is very watchable as the menacing but sometimes naive Ripper, the best line goes to George Sanders who plays the inspector from Scotland Yard who has invited Kitty for a private tour of the Black Museum and asks her to come to tea with his mother. Kitty ignores his question and asks a series of questions about various artifacts, when she gets to a large poker the inspector tells her a man used it beat his fiancee to death. Kitty asks why and the inspector replies "Probably because she wouldn't answer a perfectly reasonable question". Not the sort of pickup line you hear every day.
(According to Wikipedia the Black Museum was established four years after this film was made!)
Ian's rating: 3.5/5
Via Satellite
Carol Dunn is swimming for NZ at the Olympics and doing unexpectedly well. The TV is talking of her as a medal hope, and are starting to take an interest in the Dunn family. Identical twin sister Chrissy (both played by Danielle Cormack) is happy enough to be recognised as Carol's sister especially if recognition comes with a free beer, but she is embarrassed by the idea that the rest of the family will be seen on national TV in all its looser glory.
There is prissy big sister Jen (Rima Te Wiata) trying to get pregnant and jellous of pregnant, flirty, but unattached, middle sister Lyn. In the middle trying ineffectually to make her daughters play nice, is slightly ditsy Mum -- who treats the TV people like royalty, bemusing the TV host with a curtsey! Rounding out the family is Jen's severely henpecked husband Ken (Tim Balme) is an electrician whose incompetence is matched by his over confidence.
Little wonder that Chissy has got it into her head that she and Carol were adopted -- they couldn't possibly be related to this mad bunch. Set in Wellington, there is plenty of the city to see as Crissy spends half the film running away from situations she can't handle; starting with the previous night's one-night stand with a guy (Karl Urban) who turns out to be the TV cameraman.
The plot is surprisingly complicated for a comedy and comes with an excellent twist at the end that Rima Te Wiata brings off very well. In fact all the cast throw themselves into their parts with relish, while being completely believable.
In the 1990s sport and television were dear to the hearts of most Kiwis. Given how we react when we caught by a TV camera scanning a stadium crowd they still are today. But in other ways Via Satellite is blast from the past, even though 1998 was only 9 years ago, some of the suburban interiors, clothes and attitudes would be more at home in the Telethon era than the latte era. But this distance in time makes it easier for us to laugh at ourselves.
Did I mention that there is some excellent pre-1980's suburban decore? It is worth hunting this film down on DVD and renting it.
Ian's rating: 4/5
There is prissy big sister Jen (Rima Te Wiata) trying to get pregnant and jellous of pregnant, flirty, but unattached, middle sister Lyn. In the middle trying ineffectually to make her daughters play nice, is slightly ditsy Mum -- who treats the TV people like royalty, bemusing the TV host with a curtsey! Rounding out the family is Jen's severely henpecked husband Ken (Tim Balme) is an electrician whose incompetence is matched by his over confidence.
Little wonder that Chissy has got it into her head that she and Carol were adopted -- they couldn't possibly be related to this mad bunch. Set in Wellington, there is plenty of the city to see as Crissy spends half the film running away from situations she can't handle; starting with the previous night's one-night stand with a guy (Karl Urban) who turns out to be the TV cameraman.
The plot is surprisingly complicated for a comedy and comes with an excellent twist at the end that Rima Te Wiata brings off very well. In fact all the cast throw themselves into their parts with relish, while being completely believable.
In the 1990s sport and television were dear to the hearts of most Kiwis. Given how we react when we caught by a TV camera scanning a stadium crowd they still are today. But in other ways Via Satellite is blast from the past, even though 1998 was only 9 years ago, some of the suburban interiors, clothes and attitudes would be more at home in the Telethon era than the latte era. But this distance in time makes it easier for us to laugh at ourselves.
Did I mention that there is some excellent pre-1980's suburban decore? It is worth hunting this film down on DVD and renting it.
Ian's rating: 4/5
Monday, August 27, 2007
Ratatouille
What is the difference between a squirrel and a rat?Ratatouille is a film that goes a long way to rehabilitate the reputation of rats. It is the latest Pixar / Walt Disney animation. So it should come as no surprise that the story is animal driven. In this case a rat, 'cursed' with a superior sense of smell, decides that he has had enough of stealing and eating garbage. He wants to eat good food. In fact not only eat good food, but learn to cook it too.
Marketing
Ignoring his father's advice to "stay away from the humans", Remy ventures into the kitchen to try real food, watch TV cooking programs and read a cookbook left open on the bench. Naturally dad was right, catastrophe strikes and the rat family has to leave (via the sewer) chased by an angry shotgun wielding old woman.
Our hero finds himself outside the restaurant of his TV chef hero on the day that a new boy (Linguini) starts working in the kitchen. With way more enthusiasm than talent Linguini starts by screwing things up and Remy comes to his rescue. Once Linguini realises that Remy isn't vermin the two new comers join forces in the hostile environment of the restaurant kitchen. First they have to overcome the language barrier. Remy can understand what humans say but humans can't understand rats. The animators make great mileage out of how they do this. Then the pair have to overcome the jealousy of the boss.
Judging by the squeals and excited explanations of what was on the screen the film was a hit with the kids sitting further down our row at Hoyts last week. The film is packed with lots of good old fashioned morals: don't steal, don't judge by appearances, value loyalty, value teamwork and don’t let being the odd one out get you down. Plus some more complex ones like "who comes first: family or friends?” I have no idea if any of that stuff makes the desired impression on kids, but this film has it by the truck load.
It is longish (almost 2 hours) and the plot is pretty predictable but for kids I doubt if that matters and there are enough jokes and fun visuals to keep the adults amused. I think the animators have done well with making the rats move in a rat-like way. Even the final credits are fun to watch.
Not quite as good as Finding Nemo but definitely recommended.
Ian's rating: 4/5
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Pickup on South Street
The camera flicks from face to face in a crowded subway car. It doesn't take long to decide which two out of the four faces belong to the stars of this film, namely Richard Widmark and Jean Peters. This 1953 noir thriller has more holes in its plot than a James Bond movie and like a good Bond movie, its panache carries it through. Only a noir hero can pick a girl's handbag when they first meet, punch her out and ransack her handbag on their next encounter, relieve her of $500 on their third and then walk into the credits with her on his arm.
The Feds know Joey is passing secrets to the Commies but want to catch the guy he is passing it to. Joey uses ex-girlfriend Candy (looking like a movie star on the way to the Oscars rather than a unobtrusive courier on the Subway, but hey this is the movies). The Feds are watching Candy when the film is lifted from her handbag by pickpocket, Skip McCoy (looking every inch the filmstar). Skip, who's profession relies on being unobtrusive, is now centre of attention. Everyone wants the film. Offers from Joey (via Candy) go up from $50 to $25,000. The police offer a clean rap-sheet. And Candy offers herself. Skip plays them off against each other and its the women, Candy and Moe (the police informer), who get shot.
This film was made at a time when people were looking for reds under every bed, and Communists were as unquestionably the enemy as 'Terrorists' are today. So director Samuel Fuller contrasts the treachery of passing US secrets to the Communists with the treachery of a police informer, and the trust governments expect from their citizens to the lack of trust when the citizen is a habitual criminal and the government is represented by the police. Watching this film in the George W Bush era adds an extra layer of irony that Sam Fuller couldn't have anticipated.
Ian's rating: 3/5
The Feds know Joey is passing secrets to the Commies but want to catch the guy he is passing it to. Joey uses ex-girlfriend Candy (looking like a movie star on the way to the Oscars rather than a unobtrusive courier on the Subway, but hey this is the movies). The Feds are watching Candy when the film is lifted from her handbag by pickpocket, Skip McCoy (looking every inch the filmstar). Skip, who's profession relies on being unobtrusive, is now centre of attention. Everyone wants the film. Offers from Joey (via Candy) go up from $50 to $25,000. The police offer a clean rap-sheet. And Candy offers herself. Skip plays them off against each other and its the women, Candy and Moe (the police informer), who get shot.
This film was made at a time when people were looking for reds under every bed, and Communists were as unquestionably the enemy as 'Terrorists' are today. So director Samuel Fuller contrasts the treachery of passing US secrets to the Communists with the treachery of a police informer, and the trust governments expect from their citizens to the lack of trust when the citizen is a habitual criminal and the government is represented by the police. Watching this film in the George W Bush era adds an extra layer of irony that Sam Fuller couldn't have anticipated.
Ian's rating: 3/5
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Black Snake Moan
If that film poster is sending you running for hills, then just keep running. (You probably weren't all that hot on the title either.)If you are still reading then you might be wondering why Samuel L. Jackson has that big-ass chain around a semi-dressed Christina Ricci. Is it really that way in the movie? Or is this good old fashioned exploitation advertising? And will my significant other or date-for-the-evening look at me funny if I suggest we go and see it? (Hey if you really want that funny look tell them you'd prefer to see it by yourself.)
This film pulls out all the stops on cliches about the American South. Skinny white trash girls in Daisy-Duke shorts, white bars full of guys playing pool, black bars with guys playing the blues, old guys selling produce off the back of a pickup truck. About the only things missing are the KKK and alligators. But this is all window dressing. What we are wondering about is why Rae (Christina Ricci), who is devoted to her boyfriend, suddenly goes nympho as soon as he is called up for duty in Iraq? And what the heck is Lazarus (Samuel L. Jackson) thinking when he puts that chain on her after he finds her unconscious on the side of the road? Even the locals find Rae and Lazarus's behaviour disturbing. And finally when is the black snake going to moan?
If you like blues music and a movie that will make you wonder what the heck, or if you really just want to see Christina Ricci chained up in her knickers then go and see this movie.
Ian's rating: 4/5
Note: there is violence and rape in addition to the non-PC stuff I mentioned above.
Razzle Dazzle
Do you take your kids to dance class? Did you go yourself as a kid? Or do you just like Australian comedies? Another film back from the World Cinema Showcase, now on guess where?
This film takes a risk by being yet another mock-documentary. It follows the fortunes of an unconventional dance teacher and his dance class as they prepare for a competition. Mr Johnathan choreographs his dances inspired by global issues like poverty, global warming and child labour. Other dance teachers prefer to be inspired by Broadway and MTV. It takes a dig at obsessiveness, precocious children, pushy parents and officialdom.
Ian's rating: 3.5/5
This film takes a risk by being yet another mock-documentary. It follows the fortunes of an unconventional dance teacher and his dance class as they prepare for a competition. Mr Johnathan choreographs his dances inspired by global issues like poverty, global warming and child labour. Other dance teachers prefer to be inspired by Broadway and MTV. It takes a dig at obsessiveness, precocious children, pushy parents and officialdom.
Ian's rating: 3.5/5
Heartbreak Hotel
This comedy is another returnee from the World Cinema Showcase, now on at the Paramount. It is about two 40 something single women trying their luck at a singles bar in Stockholm. Sexy, confident Elisabeth (Helena Bergström) leads tall, timid Gudrun (Maria Lundkvist) astray.
Too much of a chick flick for me. Though did I mention that Helena Bergström is sexy?
Ian's rating: 2/5
Too much of a chick flick for me. Though did I mention that Helena Bergström is sexy?
Ian's rating: 2/5
Pierrepoint
I notice that four of the films I enjoyed earlier this year at the World Cinema Showcase are now on at the Paramount. Pierrepoint is the story of Albert Pierrepoint probably the most famous British hangman of the twentieth century. Being hangman is a part time job, his day job was delivery truck driver. It was also a secret job, he doesn't even tell his wife -- though she guesses. He sees his job as necessary part of the system, but one that should be done 'properly'. But the job, not having anyone to talk to and media attention take their toll.
The film doesn't take an obvious pro or anti-capital punishment stance. While there are a lot of hangings in this movie, the camera concentrates on what happens before the trap door opens rather than after.
If you are a Timothy Spall fan (Barry Taylor in Auf Wiedersehen, Pet) then this is your film, as he is in almost every scene.
Ian's rating: 3/5
The film doesn't take an obvious pro or anti-capital punishment stance. While there are a lot of hangings in this movie, the camera concentrates on what happens before the trap door opens rather than after.
If you are a Timothy Spall fan (Barry Taylor in Auf Wiedersehen, Pet) then this is your film, as he is in almost every scene.
Ian's rating: 3/5
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Knocked Up
Knocked Up is the sort of film title that has one scanning the small print for the phrase "by the director of Dumb and Dumber". The premise: gorgeous, successful woman has drunken sex with a complete stranger (an obese looser no less) and 8 weeks later tracks him down to guilt-trip him into playing daddy - suggests that this was the sort of crass American comedy you wouldn't go out of your way to tell your more high brow friends that you had spent good money to see.
I really enjoyed it.
Perhaps it was a case of reality exceeding low expectations or else this movie is more subtle than it appears on the surface. On the surface it looks like a romantic other-side-of-the-track, chick's world vs guy's world, coping-with-pregnancy comedy with a side dish of slacker humour. While these components are there; I didn't feel I was rooting for an against-the-odds relationship, for the chicks to beat the guys or for the slackers to come out on top, these (and many other things) are vehicles for humour not ends in themselves.
Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl) is the young career woman who's drunken celebration leads her to take Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) home for some sexual relief. Alison's home a flat in is the garden of sister Debbie (Leslie Mann), her husband Pete (Paul Rudd) and their two little girls. The deteriorating relationship between the critical, nagging Debbie and the alternately sarcastic and passive Pete form the B plot (A surprising use of anti-role models). Ben, who has never had a job, shares a house with some similar friends. Don't expect gritty realism here, these losers are Canadian losers, slumming it south of the border but essentially nice, civilized blokes under that crass veneer.
Eight weeks later Alison, carrying a psychological shotgun, tracks Ben down to 'offer' him the job of father without the perks of sex. She is beautiful, he is desperately optimistic; and father-to-be will at least get his foot in the door now and then. Initially Ben is only paying lip service to his new role, but he is as faithful as a puppy, and comes creeping back even when kicked -- and Alison kicks him hard, low and often. He eventually changes into some semblance of the new age father she is looking for (validating Debbie earlier assertion that you need to change your man rather than accept him as he is). I don't think Alison comes to love Ben but she does come to rely on him.
Instead of a single style of humour (eg farce, The Office, Jim Carrey) or a single overall situation (e.g. mistaken identity) there is a scattergun approach. Ben and his friends are movie buffs so there are some in-jokes about movies in their scenes in addition to the toilet humour and visual gags. When Alison is at work we have digs at management v employee relations in corporate (but PC) America. There are marital disputes to make you squirm and virtually everyone bar the kids have body image issues. There is even meta humour in having all the marriages in the film going badly and a couple of funny impression gags.
All in all, there are a lot of different types of humour going on here, on a bunch of issues, to match a wide range of tastes. You won't find all of it funny and you won't identify with all the characters, but there should be plenty for most people to laugh at. While it wasn't perfect with flaws from the basic premise through to the prosthetic tummy (which didn't match Katherine Heigl skin colour in the same way that flesh coloured underwear or pantyhose never do). But it was certainly worth double the $6 I paid at Hoyts last night.
Ian's rating: 4/5
I really enjoyed it.
Perhaps it was a case of reality exceeding low expectations or else this movie is more subtle than it appears on the surface. On the surface it looks like a romantic other-side-of-the-track, chick's world vs guy's world, coping-with-pregnancy comedy with a side dish of slacker humour. While these components are there; I didn't feel I was rooting for an against-the-odds relationship, for the chicks to beat the guys or for the slackers to come out on top, these (and many other things) are vehicles for humour not ends in themselves.
Alison Scott (Katherine Heigl) is the young career woman who's drunken celebration leads her to take Ben Stone (Seth Rogen) home for some sexual relief. Alison's home a flat in is the garden of sister Debbie (Leslie Mann), her husband Pete (Paul Rudd) and their two little girls. The deteriorating relationship between the critical, nagging Debbie and the alternately sarcastic and passive Pete form the B plot (A surprising use of anti-role models). Ben, who has never had a job, shares a house with some similar friends. Don't expect gritty realism here, these losers are Canadian losers, slumming it south of the border but essentially nice, civilized blokes under that crass veneer.
Eight weeks later Alison, carrying a psychological shotgun, tracks Ben down to 'offer' him the job of father without the perks of sex. She is beautiful, he is desperately optimistic; and father-to-be will at least get his foot in the door now and then. Initially Ben is only paying lip service to his new role, but he is as faithful as a puppy, and comes creeping back even when kicked -- and Alison kicks him hard, low and often. He eventually changes into some semblance of the new age father she is looking for (validating Debbie earlier assertion that you need to change your man rather than accept him as he is). I don't think Alison comes to love Ben but she does come to rely on him.
Instead of a single style of humour (eg farce, The Office, Jim Carrey) or a single overall situation (e.g. mistaken identity) there is a scattergun approach. Ben and his friends are movie buffs so there are some in-jokes about movies in their scenes in addition to the toilet humour and visual gags. When Alison is at work we have digs at management v employee relations in corporate (but PC) America. There are marital disputes to make you squirm and virtually everyone bar the kids have body image issues. There is even meta humour in having all the marriages in the film going badly and a couple of funny impression gags.
All in all, there are a lot of different types of humour going on here, on a bunch of issues, to match a wide range of tastes. You won't find all of it funny and you won't identify with all the characters, but there should be plenty for most people to laugh at. While it wasn't perfect with flaws from the basic premise through to the prosthetic tummy (which didn't match Katherine Heigl skin colour in the same way that flesh coloured underwear or pantyhose never do). But it was certainly worth double the $6 I paid at Hoyts last night.
Ian's rating: 4/5
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
I Wake Up Screaming
I Wake Up Screaming was last night's Film Society film. Apparently this is an early example (made in 1941) of film noir. A newly discovered model is found dead in her apartment by her flatmate / sister. In true noir style suspicion falls on an innocent man (her promoter). While being pursued by the police, it is up to him to prove his innocence by finding the real murderer. In another cliché, he is helped by a plucky woman (the sister -- played by Betty Grable).
What made this old film worth mentioning is the menacing detective played superbly by Laird Cregar and made more sinister by some great camera work and clever sound effects (squeaky floorboards follow him). I notice on the web that it has been released on DVD and I'll look out for it, as there were some good one-liners in the dialog. Someone who probably watched the DVD has posted some nice pictures that give you an idea of the ambiance.
Ian's rating 3.5/5
What made this old film worth mentioning is the menacing detective played superbly by Laird Cregar and made more sinister by some great camera work and clever sound effects (squeaky floorboards follow him). I notice on the web that it has been released on DVD and I'll look out for it, as there were some good one-liners in the dialog. Someone who probably watched the DVD has posted some nice pictures that give you an idea of the ambiance.
Ian's rating 3.5/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
