Terminal

Jarhead
A Jarhead,
for a WW2 term where the Mason Jar Company started making the helmets, which also incidentally resembled jars, for the Marine Core. Courtesy of wikipedia an amazing reference and time wasting tool (see their article on Scientology) so maybe I should just include a list of words and you can go and wiki them as im doing for this writeup, nah its ok Ill do the leg work on this one.

Jarhead is the film adaption of Anthony Swofford's experiences in Gulf War I beginning with bootcamp (he was a draftee) and snapshotting through some of the experiences that he got to participate in. So first off call it one of the *new* war films that Three Kings started its a sub genre where war is presented with different and equal parts humor horror and humanity, Jarheads is more cynical than Kings prehaps because it is autobiographical and to remain faithful you can really add a laugh or two to lighten a scene, why would you want to, its a war film (and in being so is also an antiwar film) it never was and never will be fun.
Kings is a good comparison if you wanted one though...

So the lads get through basic and shipped off to the desert where they find no war, no idea about what to do, noone else who knows, in shot a total cluster fuck but with more sand and less water. In a situation like this "Suggested techniques for the marine to use in the avoidance of boredom and loneliness: Masturbation. Rereading of letters from unfaithful wives and girlfriends. Cleaning your rifle. Further masturbation. Rewiring Walkman. Arguing about religion and meaning of life. Discussing in detail, every woman the marine has ever fucked. Debating differences, such as Cuban vs. Mexican, Harleys vs. Hondas, left- vs. right-handed masturbation. Further cleaning of rifle. Studying of phillipino mail order bride catalogue. Further masturbation. Planning of marine's first meal on return home. Imagining what a marine's girlfriend and her man Jody are doing in the hey, or in the alley, or in a hotel bed." In the end they find that they have been superseeded by technology, and that scene made the movie for me, it showed among other things just how pointless and useless big nation onto little nation war is, and how the jarhead along with any other footsoldier may soon have his time up, it doesnt say it exactly but it hints at it...

Good bits & bad bits:
Jamie Foxx, booya!
can feel like alot of other (good) vietnam and gulf war films
Alot of raw emotion, Jake Gyllenhaal (from that film with cowboys and mountains, and that other film with psycho imaginary rabbits) and Peter Sarsgaard really
shine as the sniper/scout team the film centres around
Its a buddy movie
This country is one of our allies!!

Heh, ok maybe being a bit harsh there, but damn I just think that it would be so much less expensive in every possible way if other ways were found that worked, but dreams are free. If you want to see a war film you definitely wont be dissappointed.

thanks

whoo, livejournals spell checker is like the english teacher from hell, complete with a long ruler and bad breath :)

King Kong 2005
The current user comment for 'King Kong' called the film 'a labour of love' and for Peter Jackson you get the impression it really was, I'm not sure if anyone saw interviews or porduction shots that have Jackson in them but you see how he lost a hell of alot of weight (a big change from the McDee chugging days of Lord of the Rings). A big salute to
IMDB, he was going to make Kong before the LOTR trilogy but the studio put the kai-bosh on that, it would have been interesting to see what Kong done five years ago would have been like, would there have been an Andy Serkis on board at that time? Either way things will pan out in their own time, we had LOTR and now we have Kong and thats the order everyone will remember, I think it would have made some cosmetic differences for each of the films but the essence would have been there.

Before seeing Kong its worth noting its three hour playing time, and trying not to sound like a broken record you will not notice it passing. It really was worth seeing on the big screen so if you were not able, shame on you :) It just blew me away visually, back in the day Kong and his cousins Frankenstein Dracula and the Invisible Man ushered in a new genre the monster film, *scratches head* I would say the horror genre but then there is 'Nosferatu' in the 20's pretty sharp those Europeans. Kong in 1933 used stop motion animation, evolutionary for the time and in remaking it Jackson wanted to truly suspend the audience's disbelief in the same way and he does, the newest Kong has some of the most fucking amazing visuals I have ever seen onscreen (I thought the Star Wars Episodes I II and III pushed the envelope, but it feels like Peter has redefined what an envelope does :)) The events leading up to and including Skull island were so cool, and that sequence closes just as fatigue from being bludgeoned with everything from giant bugs to dinosuars begins to set in.
I could blah blah blah on and on about how it looked so I wont, apart from this, New York in the 1930s was 4 blocks across and one storey high everything else is CGI, oh and another Oscar to the Weta Digital team, go Richard Taylor!

So whats it all about then? Hollywood cheap shot producer Carl Denham gets his hands on a map to a mysterious island that will let him finish his film so with cast and crew (yar har har) ready they set sail... meheheheh go and see it to find out the rest. Its a fairly simple story, but with a fine heart and alot of emotion.

Good bits:
Booya super eye candy
Theater going silent at the end
Naomi Watts, she's beautiful nuff said
Skull island, makes Jurassic Park look like Disneyland
and
so
on

Bad bits:
Find a comfy seat, Hoyts have them now ... finally
Bugs, big ugly fucking bugs, those giant centipede things ehhhhhhhh

Ok, its a big short but well Kong sells itself, its worth one look and its kiwi made so maybe worth two, I really believe that Peter Jackson knows what he is doing now film wise the good and the bad films will be in the pipeline this is one of the good ones.

Btw Weta Digital are in preproduction for an Evangelion live action film, the original material is anime and really mind tripping, os if it ever see's the light of day it should be worth a look :)

Be cool to after school, and its off to the movies I go I go
Laters

Saw II
The second Saw, which is more accurate than just calling it two or sequel, so call it one film divided into two parts. Phew (scratches head and does his best James Dean) its been a while since I saw this so what still sticks in the mind about it, oh yea fucking messy just like the first one, there are some real cringe moments here (needles, sharp things and so on) think Cabin Fever or the Texas Chainsaw remake. So its grisly is there a reason to see it? Damn straight if you want a scary movie night then these two in sequence fit the bill very comfortably, they are not going to win any Oscars but they are not your typical trashy horror flick.

Actually in the last few years (from about 2000 onwards) there has been a subtle trend towards retiring the werewolf, sending the intergalatic space menace(tm) home, burying the zombies, and staking those pesky vampires. That infinite creation box for some strange sick and wacky shit the human mind has made its return as a movie bad guy which is where Saw came in, it didnt have big names or expansive (or even big sets, most of SAW took place in one room) sets, infact the claustrophobic feel of it was one of the things that made it so watchable, Saw 2 follows the same formula its a microcosm kind of like Survivor Extreme would be if they ever made it :) The case has some recognisable names Donne Wahlberg (woohoo the other Wahlberg hehehe) Shawnee Smith and Glenn Plumber and everyone overacts massively, it cracks me up sometimes thinking about it. The special efx are suitably gristly, no spiders thank fuck and effective for the subject, all other information remains hazy and on a need to know basis.

Good bits:
Finishes what Saw started, esp if you hate films that just end...
Twisty turns, keeps you off balance

Bad bits:
Nothing stands out, except maybe laughing at inopportune moments

The thing that makes Saw/Saw II interesting idea the *bad* guy formulates about what are you willing to do and how far are you willing to go as you begin to realise how little little you truly have or have done, are you strong enough to change? Its a case of sit back and find out if they are, and in the horror genre both the films are a breath of fresh air, best watched sandwiched together with the lights off.

Flicks you might like to see:
Lifeboat - its an old Hitchcock film with similar lines as Saw II, has bee remade quite a few times now, check it out
Das Experiment - a German film with some parallels, pretty gritty stuff too

The Worlds Fastest Indian
It could almost be the best story...
an underdog on an impossible journey, it follows the true story closely, it starts in Invercargill (I can count the number of films that feature Invercargill on one hand) and its directed by a kiwi Rodger Donaldson (born in Australia, but I think we will claim him as our own, they do it to us all the time :)). It tells about a slice of life of Burt Munro, by all accounts a gentleman and a scoundrel, its very cool and slightly scary how something comes along that people have some firsthand experience with, so many stories come out of the woodwork, Ive talked to people who taught some of his kids and for those that thought Anthony Hopkins accent was a tad suspect (put myself at the top of that list) apparently he really nailed Burt as a character, how often can you say that about a film.

The film covers Burt's first trip to Bonneville Salt Flats although the film is as much about the journey as it is about the record breaking. The cast is Anthony Hopkins and everyone else is pretty much relegated to support roles but being the film is about one person Hopkins really does well and steals every scene, no problems acting wise, you can play spot the Mayor even... Cinematically its simple when it needs to be, sharp when it has to be (shooting around Invercargill is carefully done to keep the period correct) and spectacular (the scenes on the salt flats at speed wowed me) for the scenes involving driving riding etc very hard to do and make look unique. There is little? (hard to tell it gets better every day) CGI I guess there are still filmmakers that prefer to do things themselves (yea, do it while you can before the geeks take over).

Good bits:
Being closer to the subject matter than usual
Feel good films (yes Im a sucker for them)
Just a damn good story

Bad bits:
Hopkins Burt accent, it still bugs me even if it is flawless
thats it

Its good to see more NZ films on screens all over the world, what will be interesting will be to see if the momentum can be maintained, and more importantly that local film industry doesnt become Hollywood. If you have heard its a film about motorbikes, boring as shit subject, see it anyway the film does all the work and doesnt dwell on the mechanical aspect ultimately, its better balanced than that. I put a link below, dont read it, Burt Munro in real life loved one thing above all others = motorbikes and the links crystalise this impression, what I take to heart is the effect he had on everyone he met, everyone shared in his vision, and all becuase some crazy old man from Invercargill wanted to race his bike and break a record.

PS Being its in the same vein I truely hope someone someday (not me) makes a film about John Briton and his bike, its a story everybit as good as Burts. Come to think of it there
plenty of amazing kiwis out there, and thats a good thing ladies and gents :)

Linx:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0412080/usercomments
http://www.indianmotorbikes.com/features/munro/munro.htm
http://www.britten.co.nz/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Britten

Sin City
Sin - A transgression of a religious or moral law, especially when deliberate.
City - A center of population, commerce, and culture.

Sin City, or if you prefer Basin City is home to some very unpleasant people, there are no heroes but there are demons. There are hunters soldiers hookers and angry angels with bad tickers. The City should not even be, but it does exist and for two hours you can meet some of its denizens over three interwoven stories.

You remember Batman and Boy Wonder climbing 'up' the side of a building, it was hokey but back then you didnt care you didnt have the need or methods to analyse or break it down, it was a vehicle for the Batman comic series into the small screen and eventually the big screen (and incidentally introduced a new concept in converting a comic to a film, Batman is not a nice guy, he is dark, and so is his world). Independent comics really push the envelope for content now, I guess we are old enough to be able to handle sex and violence in a comic, Frank Miller's Sin City could I guess exemplify this openess, or maybe Preacher, Transmetropolitan or hard anime Hentai. It is recognised as some of the most impressive of its breed both by readers and those who make it their business to study a very well read medium.

Sin City (and dont miss any part of it) is a high speed ride, that only slows down to wave a tyre iron (or a hatchet) under your nose before the door slams closed and the foot is stomped full hard on the gas. Three stories "The Hard Goodbye" "The Big Fat Kill" "That Yellow Bastard" play out, occasionally crossing paths, there is no single thread but everything (your paying attention to it all remember? ok?) ties together smoothly seamlessly. It seems a little rude to give you the salient bits in the film, but what the fuck its heading towards having a status prehaps greater than its comic relative, become a culture vulture and see it sometime, or dont :)

The cast, damn what a cast, start at the top I guess ... Ive read that Robert Rodriguez ended up leaving the Directors Guild of America because they were pissed at him giving directing credit to Frank Miller, the man is dedicated to his art :) Who else hmmm Bruce Willis, Benecio Del Toro, Rutger Hauer, Jessica Alba, Brittany Murphy, Powers Boothe and on and on, oh and Mickey Rourke shows why he is still a hell of an actor.

Once you see the opening scenes you will think you walked into the wrong film, some crazy 50s serial reruns, no its the right place its the right film. It for the most part shot in beautiful black and white, so sharp and keeping faithful to the source material, there are some amazing sequences, ok Ill wank on about the visuals no further than to say they have raised the bar, not much isnt possible onscreen now.

Good bits:
oh its all good

Other bits:
tad violent for you kiddies
dont look for any shining hero types, its a dark place Sin City, you need to be sure you want to go somewhere like that otherwise you might not enjoy yourself.

Believe it or not but its hard to describe Sin City. There is alot of depth to every part of it from the characters right through, I guess Im saying to form some concrete opinions about City you need to see it more than once. Even if its not your thing, then accept it as something that has shaken film things up and will continue to do so, I hope in a good way.

Damn, kind of played out hasnt it, past the used by date :)
Tired and heading for bed, thanks for reading

Nite

http://hem.passagen.se/fm4/frank1.htm

Land of the Dead
Land is the fourth dead film by George Romero, Night of (remade by master of gore Tom Savini) Dawn of (remade just last year) and Day of which is the messiest and where the series should have ended preceed it. It might be a symptom of life and how we have little time to finish things, Land is the meal that tasted good right, but someone forgot the knife the napkins and the bottle opener then made you rush because they were about to close. This isnt a rant review, because I have made a grand total of ZERO films Im not in a position to offer practical advice or pick holes in Land, getting a film to distribution cant be an easy thing and there are too many examples of films that proved to be better once they hit DVD, I hope Land is going to be another.

To recap, humanity is hoplessly fucking outnumbered (500,000 to 1 hey its alright we still have a chance, like hell) and in an interesting progression of the previous films a community has formed that is well armed and fed, protected by a small army and supplied by scavangers who venture out among the dead. Entry into the community is restricted to the fat cat sect, the life style is more than a little appealing to those who keep the wealthy happy and animosity breeds like (gag, choking on cliches) wildfire, leading to a small palace revolt. And roll film as the plot gets into gear...

Zombies, I guess we need to do a bit of zombie 101. Zombies feature in voodoo, more commonly in the transplanted descendents of African slaves, there is a film called 'Serpent and the Rainbow' that provides an interesting perspective. Alot of the olde b&w zombie films use voodoo as the plot device for explaining the dead misbehaving. Ok so thats the walking dead, now different zombie films portray zombies in many (usually really really fucking bloody) ways, slow zombies, fast zombies moaning mertle zombies, stealthy sneak up on a pistol packing rambo want-to-be ex helpdesk operator, all sorts. The need to eat living beings usually doesnt get explained terribly well, but borrows from werewolf vampire and blood type legends, Romero zombies are actually outer space descended zombies, cool eh? They are also the vacant slow moving and perpetually hungry kind, urrrrr!

The cast should be recognisable, no head liners Simon Baker from the Sentinel, John Leguizamo from a whole lot of different things (he's doesnt have a whole lot to work with here...) and Dennis Hopper the fella is getting old, still some magic there though :) The leading lady is Asia Argento (her dad is Dario Argento and he makes fucking good scary films too, but in Italian...) and she gets to have the most fun of anyone, whiney boys :)

The efx are bloody, the story takes place mostly at night which helps if you are squeamish, camera work is simple and effective at delivering the story. Its all vanilla and dont know enough about this stuff to say if its good or shite.

Good bits:
gooey messy
tacky dialogue
some good scares

Bad bits:
weak story leading to
actors trying to give a good performance resulting in
an almost scary, almost depressing, zombie film.

Damn, I didnt want to do that but, Mr Romero you can do better, you HAVE done better. You should have ended it on Day of the Dead, humanity was fucked by the end of that one, its not a hole we could really dig ourselves out of and I guess was and appropiate out.
The remade Dawn of the Dead is the best thing to compare Land to and Dawn comes of looking pretty damn good (excellente sound track too)
so if you have a hankering for brains, err zombie films watch some olde black and white zombie films 'White Zombie' and 'I walked with a Zombie', definitely watch Night of the Dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day, then watch Land last, if you need some dessert like.

http://www.swagga.com/voodoo.htm

Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
Is it over? Feels a little strange to see the final Star Wars film that George will have parented, its not the end of Star Wars per se either for better or worse its too big a franchise to let go away (there are two tv series and maybe another film in the works) but is the end of the tale that is the heart of Star Wars. What did I think of it? In one respect it does its job of tying the early episodes to the later, on another level was it a good film? Its hard to say, episodes one and two (especially one) seem to be universally heaved on, and yet the more I watch them the more I enjoy them especially episode one, it works but thats just me :) Maybe if its seen a few more times it will improve, what weighs against that is the fact that when you sit down to watch it (especially the first time) you still know what has happened and what is going to happen, it lessens some of the impact the film might have otherwise had and is my main bitch with EIII.

So whats new? Not really any new faces except for Bruce Spence (awsome Aussie actor), Wayne Pygram (from Farscape, blatant plug for a really good series that just so happens to be in a scifi setting, just very very good) and a shitload of Tem Morrisons (which isn't new but is kind of cool in a kiwi way, no way Yoda is cooking him any fucking eggs). What else, Anakin going from poster child for the Jedi councel to something much darker, Padme unfortunately becoming trivialised, lots of other little things that dont mean too much.

What about the eye candy? That Industrial Light and Magic (http://www.ilm.com/) came into being because of Star Wars and now takes us to galaxies far away and closer to home aswell is a good thing, basically if you can think it it can be realised and put up on a screen. It doesnt hurt the smaller independent filmmakers either as they come up the technology latter aswell, (they just cant always afford to climb as high) film making has always embraced technology and Star Wars has always showcased the latest and greatest.

Good bits:
Artoo
General Grevious (cool name)
Mace Wendu (Sam Jackson) and Chancellor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) shine
Some completeness or closure, whichever you prefer

Bad bits:
felt a little rushed
the 'middle' film

One thing I hope is that with its release on dvd George Lucas breathes a little magic into EIII and we get something extra, but if not then not. Anakins battle was the essence of the film, just so much going on in his head and gentle nudging in the wrong direction, love loss and death and how even the strongest cant fight it and win. And a healthy dose of samurai values. Damn, hard to believe Star Wars is complete. I would like to say, some more some time... :)

Good innings Mr Lucas.

The Ring Two
The Ring (as in the remake of the Japanese original) was a good scary film, it was not obvious what was going on 5 minutes into the film and kept you interested as the story unfolded through to the end. The Ring Two is a scary film, but it feels strangely familiar and this personally is not such a good thing, it begins to feel like a Nightmare on elm street or Friday the 13th serial. The biggest problem with TR2 is that it didnt encompass (tryin to find the right expression can be fun) the first film, as in the first one begins the story and the second one finishes it, its a proper sequel and as such just not as interesting as the first one was. Thats just me though, pays to make your own opinion with a film and not listen too much to what 'critics' (or chrises) have to say.

TR2 begins with Rachel and her son Aidan setting up home in a new town, moving on from the past I guess, escaping the horror, you know? Either by design or coincidence a murder reminiscent of Samara's (not wanting to say anything about Samara because she is a quite well rounded film menace, find out for yourself) handywork occurs and Rachel the dogged journo finds out about it. It soon becomes apparent that Samara has not been removed but has some new designs for Rachael and Aidan, and so the film begins...

So what do you see? Quite a bit its a good looking film with some interesting camera techniques and special effects, dark as in most of the scenes take place at night. Visually its on par with the first film. Sound is there, you tend not to notice it so much though. The cast is good lots of semi-familiar faces give it some refinement.

Good bits:
Doe, a deer a female deer, angry!
Nice visuals
Good cast

Bad bits:
Just not too scary

Which raises my main problem, it wasnt scary. The first ring was that is what really made it, the further you got into it the creepier it got. Well watch the first one it kicks ass, the Japanese originals are even more impressive, but I havn't seen them so can't comment there. And don't watch films when your attention is elsewhere just doesnt work man.

Fade to black.

House of Flying Daggers
House of flying daggers, whats the best way to describe it ... in a handful words more or less. Action, drama, love, revenge, conflict and sacrifice. Two captains of the local constabulary come up with a scheme to try and coerce a woman they suspect of being a member of a shadowy group called the 'Flying Daggers' who are in open revolt against the emperor. The plan as with all good plans falls apart as soon one of the captains, pretending to be someone else, rescues the woman Mei from prison and makes good their escape, the young captain Jin begins to learn and feel more about Mei as they head towards the Flying Dagger stronghold. I know that it does not exactly sound like the most thrilling or original premise for a film, but its about the journey as much as the destination, like a flower opening gradually you appreciate it more once you can see the full bloom.

Colour and nature are two motifs at play in HOFD, colour as in 'Hero' is used to categorise different factions, the passing of time (seasons), the crossing of great distances, and the transition of emotions. Hollywood doesnt tend to make great use of colour beyond what is required for mise en scene, what cinematographer Xiaoding Zhaoand and director Yimou Zhang have created with Daggers is remarkable because it is so vibrant and visual without being blatantly artificial, its kind of the perfect mix :) Near the beginning while the film is in the bordello you are treated to a kaleidoscope of fashion furniture and decor,so beautiful it reminded me of a mandala. Nature provides alot of the colour present, the green of the Bamboo grove the colour of the Daggers uniform spring or summer, the white of a snowstorm, coldness and death. Thats what I see after I've had time to think about it, you wouldnt describe a film to someone in those terms (not without boring them to tears) but its all of those little things that add to the story, draw you into the film without making you realise it.

Sfx is inherent, especially in the fight scenes, with CG being used where nothing else would look adequate, dont expect Lord of the Rings quality instead something more practical and very Chinese :) The sound is rich, no explosions to rupture eardrums, melodious and dramatic when it needs to be.

Good bits:
Beautiful to watch
Exciting action sequences
Good lead characters

Bad bits:
Can feel like its losing the plot sometimes

Its not for everyone, as with life sadness plays a serious part in the film, as does love and the need to preserve it, to fight for it.

If you havn't see 'Hero', its from the same director and is very good.
Also 'Raise the Red Lantern' for something a little more downbeat.

http://www.jyh.dk/indengl.htm

Alexander
Six weeks short of his 33rd birthday Alexander died, having created a kingdom that stretched from the Balkans to the Himalayas, was he a coldblooded imperialist or a military genius? I dont know if we will ever know for sure, accounts of his exploits are from historical observation and I guess open to interpretation as the gulf between today and the events as they happened ever widen. Interpretation brings up another interesting issue, what to include when making a film adaption of a person or event in history? Film is a powerful medium, a motion picture will be seen all over the world, even moreso now with the increasing advent of technology, so the representation of Alexander is imprinted into most peoples minds, is it accurate or correct, or just entertaining, historians, seekers of knowledge and people just wanting to fill in three hours all get something out of Alexander.

Pretty deep huh, or just alot of spurious bullshit, you be the judges.
Oliver Stone is the 'general' of Alexander, although there is atleast one other film adaption in the works, how right did he get it? The film covers the bredth of Alexanders life, alot of the important events he participated in are there, some are given great detail, like the battles at Gaugamela and against the Indian king Porus, others are given less even though they are important, but you have to draw the line somewhere or you end up with something just too long. Colin Farrell makes a good Alexander, he is passionate and psychotic enough to play one of histories greatest generals. Val Kilmer (who I didnt recognise straightaway due to some really good makeup and awsome acting) plays Alexander's father King Philip and Angelina Jolie his mother Olympias. Angelina got slightly shafted with her character, she doesnt get a chance to really develop it so Olympias comes across as kind of one dimensional, maybe its a Oliver Stone thing, dunno.

Technically its very pretty, the battle scenes are really well done especially the one in ancient India, Babylon and Alexandria (the one in Egypt) are CG and look fairly breath taking, plenty to see and at its prodigious length it would probably take a couple of sittings to see everything.

Good bits:
Historical film isnt easy, that said Alexander is good, in the spirit of films like Ben Hur Spartacus Cleopatra
Some amazing cinematography, appropiate given the source
Good acting, although its in the eye of the beholder, everyone loves and hates different things

Bad bits:
Im too tired to have a grump, so insert your pet peeves with Alexander here [ ]

Its not the definitive swords and sandals epic (personally I think that goes to Spartacus, until someone does something better) but it is still solid and worth a look, even if its just to educate yourself on who Alexander was and what he did.

Oh, and one other thing I found doing a little bit of research...
pothos, a passionate yearning or longing
its attributed to Alexander, I just like the sound of it as much as the meaning :)

http://www.livius.org/pn-po/pothos/pothos.html

The Incredibles
Mr Incredible, Elastigirl, Frozone and Syndrome. I know what your thinking and no this isn't action comic appreciation 101, thats in the room next door, these are some of the characters from Pixars sixth film The Incredibles. It tells the story of Bob Parr aka Mr Incredible forced into a superhero protection program by an unappreciating public along with his wife Helen aka Elastigirl and their kids Dash, Violet and Jack Jack. Ordinary everyday life doesnt suit the Parrs well and Bob in particular so when given the chance to return to his favourite occupation he falls right in, beginning the film proper.

The first thing you notice is that its fairly conventional, no talking toys monsters bugs or sea life, just normal everyday extraodinary people, as you sit there and watch it feels a bit more grown up than something like toy story, I guess I found it easier to immerse in, instead of just a nod to the parents in the audience TI tries earnestly to offer material for a wide range of moviegoers, it makes it a bit more honest and less cutsey and works well. Syndrome is a really good example, his method for improving his robot creation and the eventual use for it are subtle and cold blooded, not something you usually see in an animated film. Violet is another example, a shy teenage girl struggling to find her confidence and thrown into a serious situation, its a good guys win bad guys loose film so naturally she discovers her confidence in time to avert disaster, still good to see it getting explored onscreen among everything else that happens in the film.

Technically it looks good, being a pixar film its completely CG but with each new film they produce the detail gets cranked up a notch each time, its as colorful as a james bond film which is to say not very but the detail is well, really detailed. Im trying to think of a good example, hmmms thoughtfully, maybe when Mr Incredible gets stopped by the glob guns or the plane sequence with Elastigirl Dash and Violet. Oh there is the Pixar short film at the start, which has to be the most bizarre one yet, a work of art but strange...

Good bits:
Smarter than the average Pixar film, warmer too
Kinetic action sequences
Good humor :) Samuel L Jackson gets some beauties

Bad bits:
Kids might find it dragging at times, but generally the slow bits aren't very long and then TI hops into something exciting.

Its 121 minutes long, and it doesnt feel like it. I enjoyed it, its definitely worth a few smiles and a grin or two, and anything that does that is is a good thing :)

Garden State
In essence you tell the best story when you use yourself and your experiences as the subject. This is what Zach Braff has done for Garden State, using his home area as the setting for the story of Andrew Largeman a semi-successful actor in LA doing the grunt work that pays bills then one day hearing his answering machine record a phonecall from his father to say his mother has died. Largeman returns home for the funeral, briefly meets his father, his highschool mate Mark works at the graveyard where the funeral takes place from which Largeman begins his revisiting of his old life.

Zach Braff is the driving force behind GS, writing starring and directing, and making enough of an impression to get Natalie Portman (Sam) and Ian Holm (Gideon Largeman) as well as eventual attention of a studio to distribute a classic independent film, the only real thing saving America's cinematic integrity from becoming a joke. As well as using his home town and surrounding areas he makes use of the knowledge of his psychologist parents for the mentions of psychiatrics and pharmaceuticals (thankyou imdb :)) the film is really a labour of love and a family affair, and Zach pulled it off and its good, first time off the bat.

Cinematically there are some sfx shots but they dont dominate the film instead most shots are mid to closeup especially during close and intimate scenes, when someone is roadmapping their heart to you, you need to see their face :) The soundtrack is in the same vein with the songs chosen to perfection, conveying melancholy and whimisical overtones right on cue. Easy listening and worth a listen if you get the chance.

Goodbits:
How everything has a story towards it, from Andys motorbike to Sams head protector.
Watching Andrew Largeman start to reconnect with reality as the film processes, go Zach!
Totally spontaneous and original moments, grab them when you can :)
People you remember from the past and how well they are portrayed.
Having your mother tell you to change the CO filter because your smoking too much weed
Having your own pet cemetary complete with headstones
Shirts made from wallpaper prints
...

Badbits:
Hmm, if in my first film I got everything to work so well and someone came along and wrote some
bad bits I would not be impressed, so badbits is on a well earned holiday for this review, because
basically there wern't any :)

What is Zach saying about our generation? That its easier to exist in a regimented pharmicalalogically controlled existence that doesn't require you to think beyond what you need to do to survive or feel anything at all if you don't want to. You get so used to that contented helplessness that leaving it becomes harder and harder, are you strong enough to break free and connect with your life family and friends? Maybe that is one of the things GS is trying to tell us, that it is ok to feel and to cry and to hate and to love, and that while it can take a great ceremony to shock you into realising that your state of being isn't the best not doing anything about it is a crime, not living is the same as being dead, and all it requires is someone to care to hold your hand and believe in you, to try and understand you and to love you enough to lead you back.

Natalie's character Sam is a refraction of Andrew Lrgeman, she is the emotional side that he has lost and who guides him back. Same with his grave digging buddy Mark, another refraction a contrast between those who stay and those who leave. There is so much to enjoy and consider long after you have watched it.

Coffee and Cigarettes
Imagine walking into a cafe, an American cafe where the act of smoking will not get you escourted to the door, to meet a friend and chat over a cup of coffee. It could be a friend that you arranged to meet or simple coincidence. The conversation meanders as it often does or focuses on a particular subject, the players go from greeting to goodbye and a buffet of emotions in between. As you sit there and peoplewatch you are in your own realworld version C&C because that is what the film encompases.

C&C has 11 vignettes tied together by the coffee shop locations and through the use of visual motifs and the everpresent cigarette, the cast all portray themselves (one exception :)) which for the most part works well, some of the conversations are dry amusing and some downright strange and random. This is the simple and honest reason to go and see the film to see the interactions, or if you are a studious student of film then more than once to examine the film in greater depth. When you watch any film you are naturally drawn to movement and sound our two primary sources of input, film makers (especially with the advent of digital cinematography techniques) are extremely skilled at using every ounce of screenspace and in the process of watching a film you can miss something that isnt part of the foreground action, good examples are the pixar films totally artificial they have many levels of depth visually. Its the same with C&C while the conversations are good there are other things to see aswell, but since your eyes are starting to lid over Ill get on :)

Good bits:
Unconventional, its good to go and see a film in a different vein. Even if you don't like it its good ammunition for coffee house conversations
Black and white cinematography, visually rich think about the white coffee cup and the black coffee the checkerboard table tops black and white a polarised conversation.
The White Stripes! heh and their conversation comes with visual aids.
And an M&M mix of actors and performers.

Bad bits:
If arty films aren't your thing then 95 minutes will seem 3 hours, you are now forewarned and twoarmed.

Its hard to describe a film without talking about what happens in it, but its what happens in C&C that makes it so interesting so if your in the mood for something even more different than usual check it out.

Ok this one is a bit lightweight and late but fuck it I've been on holiday and writing something takes time effort and love.
:)

Collateral
Before I twaddle on about Collateral, I feel like I have to make a slight disclaimer:
Michael Mann is one of those great directors where everything he touches turns to gold.
'Heat' is one of his best and one of my favourites, in essence the benchmark for all of his (and many other) films
So I'm a bit biased in talking about any of Mr Manns films :)

Collateral is a bit like that christmas present you didnt expect or really like that you rewrap and pass on to someone else next year, before Mann came on to the project it had been offered to Spike Lee, Martin Scorsese and Steven Speilberg and the roles of Vincent (Tom Cruise) and Max (Jamie Foxx) were offered to Russell Crowe Adam Sandler Val Kilmer Edward Norton and Colin Farrell. What it sounds like is that Dreamworks and Paramount had done initially in the production was to stagnate the film trying to make it as A-list as possible, as it turns out it was Mann Cruise Foxx and Jada Pinkett Smith who appeared in the final cut. Which is great because few directors humanise the "bad guy" as well as Mann does, in his film right and wrong is not absolute it is instead relative to every character, as an aside if Martin Scorsese had been the director it would have been pretty damn interesting to watch.

So what is Collateral all about? Max is a LA taxi driver who picks up a fare from the airport, Vincent offers Max $600 to be his only fare for the evening, the true reason for his being in LA soon becomes apparent when a body falls onto the roof of the cab. The story unwraps itself from the point of view of many different characters that come and go through the film and by the end you feel like you have watched more than its two hours. The acting is good with the only issue being Max/Jamie Foxx, its been hard trying to figure out if Max is a fully fleshed out character or more complicated than he appeared, either way its doesn't take away from the film at all.

Cinematically its mesmerising, Dion Beebe and Paul Cameron turn LA into a neon kaleidoscope something seen in many Mann films especially 'Heat', my personal favourite being the top down view of the taxi winding its way around the skyscrapers, also the Japanese nightclub with strobes and shadows pretty awsome :) The other thing to note is the grainy video in the night shots (okay the film takes place over one night, but what I mean is the external shots) it was shot onto DV which is pretty brave given the production values but if directors like Michael Mann and Danny Boyle are using it and using really effectively I guess its a technology that has matured enough to be used in motion pictures... Ok I know Im rambling ... Sound was good LA is a busy place acoustically, the soundtrack was excellent it weaves itself into each scene giving that extra slice of realism.

Good bits:
Beautiful visuals
Good story
Some cool characters

Bad bits:
Ok something that could have been treated better was the fact the last person on Vincent's list isn't a suprise... a wee bit Hollywood :)

So I thought it was good, Michael Mann trademark film making, Tom Cruise is fairly awsome definitely not a nice guy role and he runs it really well, Its not up there with Heat, Insider and Mohicans but its not far from them either, worth seeing as an example of a really well crafted film.

The Terminal
If you have ever been stuck in an airport for what seemed like ages then maybe the Terminal was made to comiserate with you, that is not all there is happening however as you get a love story a quest and a battle, pretty good value really :)

Viktor Navorski (Tom Hanks) arrives in the USA to see his homeland erupt in flames of conflict that results in a leaderless country and a stranded Navorski. Forbidden to leave the international terminal of JFK international airport by the assistant administrator Frank Dixon (Stanley Tucci) he finds himself trapped in a microcosm of what lies beyond the front doors of the airport. Victor butts horns against and eventually befriends Joe Enrique and Gupta, airport employee's trapped in their own way as much as he is at the airport. Amelia (Catherine Zeta Jones) is Victors love interest and historical literature reading airline attendant who takes Victors continual presence at the terminal as another perpetual traveller but is attracted to his geniuneness and sense of charity. The characters were the best part of the film, they seemed like someone who could walk into during the day, almost like real people, a little bit damaged but with dreams and hopes. Tom does a awsome job with Victor at most of the time you almost forget who the actor is, he is really well known which gives the film its publicity edge but the flipside is that I see Forrest or John Miller or Woody, I guess its getting harder to suspend disbelief, ah well :)

Technically the film is traditional, no obvious CGI, no need for it really just solid cinematography with the occasional stunning piece of photography. Sound is just like what you would expect in an airport, infact one way to think about the Terminal would be to consider it as an airport wrapped around a story which is itself tied off with film, yea thats exactly what it is layered and with depth...

Good bits:
Good sense of humor
Victors self-sufficient lifestyle
Its a cool story, that while not suspenseful twists and turns at a leisurely pace.

Bad bits:
Its a bit over two hours so find a comfortable place to watch it

Would you go and see it at the movies? Probably not, its more of a sit at home on a quiet afternoon and put a smile on your face type of film.

Laters :)

Zatôichi
The blind swordsman Zatôichi, it shares alot with Clint Eastwoods 'Man with No Name' films and the idea of an almost supernatural character, the two genres share many commonalties and even storylines that go on to be adapted by one-another back and forth refining and reinvigorating . Z borrows from 'A Fistful of Dollars' and 'Yojimbo' and builds upon it, two gangs are dividing a town in medievil Japan down the middle and bleeding the residents dry. Three forces enter the story who mete out quick and deadly change to any that cross their path, Zatoichi a blind old man who in equal parts of humor and lightning speed and violence carves a swave through the town. The Ronin who is in a more precarious situation as he must find income to buy medicine for his unwell wife, finds work with one of the gangs and soon after as their enforcer. The geisha girls that are on a crusade to revenge all the members who killed their family. Three forces and three threads that are the story.

The characters are interesting all in themselves but what you get aswell (no extra charge) is background to the characters, just as in a western a persons past can be expanded upon to give a positive or negative character element Zatoichi, the Ronin, and the Geisha's all have their histories. Zatoichi's flashbacks while brief and colorful dont really tell much about why he ended up where he is, it also brings up the only criticism I have which is that from time to time the story gets a little incoherent.

Had the pleasure of watching this in one of Rialto's new baby theatres, sound was awsome, the quality of the picture was pretty grainy and could have used a bit of work.

Good bits:
Fight scenes, the reason you go to see a samurai film, flick, slice, play that 'who gets the most painful cut' game :)
Sense of humor, something the Japanese are not well known for but have in abundance
Diverse cast and well rounded characters, the neighbours crazy son :)

Bad bits:
Something gets lost in translation, in no way detracts from the film though.

As long as you feel like seeing a samurai film or a western then Z is mana for the brain, just remember its subtitled, your reading and trying to watch the action at the same time, damn maybe you should see it twice!

http://www.samurai-archives.com/ronin.html

The Stepford Wives
Something worth noting, over here I am a geek in the US I would be a nerd. What would a nerd with too many brains and too much money do to win themselves the perfect mate? Just ask Dr Frankenstein you build her, or in this case mod her to become exactly what you desire complete with remote control! And since a nerd cannot keep a secret especially from other nerds they congregate in Connecticut in a town called Stepford. Now, enter Stepfords newest residents Joanna (Nicole Kidman) and Walter (Matthew Broderick) fresh from a nervous breakdown in the big city and trying to find a place where life is alot less power shopping working living and heal their marriage. Adjustments progress with Joanne making friends with two other previous career driven partners Bobbie (Bette Middler) and Roger (Roger Bart) while Walter joins the Stepford Gentlemans Club captained by Mike (Christopher Walken), all progresses fairly well until one of the Stepford wives literally blows a fuse at a hoe down piquing Joannes curosity about the seemingly strange state of affairs in the town.

TSWs is a remake of the much darker original from 1975 and based on a novel by Ira Levin, is directed by Frank "Fozzy Yoda Kermit and Miss Piggy" Oz and stars a widely varied collection of actors. Nicole Kidman as Joanna the lead character is amazing to behold, Joanna is such an extreme and yet Nicole is totally convincing and you dont recognise her at all, the other cast members also get to camp it up outrageously but Nicole does it with charm and style. Hmmm going back to Frank Oz, in places it really does feel like a adult version of a Muppet show that has gone out of control, and it does make you laugh :) It is disengaging especially at the end, like its trying to be camp in a psychotic 50's housewife kind of way but never gets there, bit of a shame because a better connection the the audience would have made it great. What really makes it is, if you break it down into pieces and just concentrate on each piece, not necessarily join them together... man that made no sense, but fuck it who cares :)

Technically its ok, no special effects really to speak of (not really necessary) the cinematography is sharply shot and at times full of detail (some of the House & Garden shots are perfect) and the sound does what it needs to make itself heard, its what is being represented and not how that is worth concentrating on.

Good bits:
NK, awsome
The opening credits kitchen of the future, ahead of its time
The reality concept shows that Joanna comes up with, riot :)
Lots of laughs

Bad bits:
Some robotic acting
Feels a bit disjointed

TSW was good, anything that makes you laugh out loud is *always* good for you, and for that reason alone its worth looking at, look a bit deeper and it covers something about how hectic we can live, how we see each other, and what we go through to change ourselves and everything around us to fit what we want. Its a morality tale to make you smile :)

The Bourne Supremacy
The Bourne Supremacy is a good example of the disparity that can occur between a book and its film cousin, reading then viewing or watching then reading can work one can complement the other and give you a much more well rounded sense of a story and its characters. The other side of this coin (and something that I really fucking hate) is when one is nothing like the other, the best example of which I think is the later Tom Clancy film adaptions especially the Harrison Ford ones. So what do you do? Read a book and never go and see it realised in film, film is this beautiful colorful noisy medium that someone does something new with every minute of every day. Just go and see films and never read the book it came from? Then you limit yourself creatively, not to mention stunting your vocabulary. There is no right answer, and no choice you have to take the good with the bad and make you own mind up.

This is what has happened with TBS, Robert Ludlum writes some really good novels, they never stop moving, have a big plot and a big scope and bigger than life characters. From the Bourne novels (Identity, Supremacy and Ultimatum) you form up this picture of Jason Bourne (aka David Webb) who is a middle aged history lecturer slash emotionally battered and bashed man of extreme action, in contrast to Matt Damons cold and clinical ex super soldier Jason Bourne. Lots of little nit picking things like that I guess is why I didn't get into it as much as everyone ele who I have talked to thats seen it. Its better if you havn't got anything to compare it against because it sits really well on its own and with the first film. Heh welcome to the MTV generation, read a book? watch a film, two hours is much easier :)

Good bits:
Story that requires you to think to figure out what is happening.
Plenty of action
Learn how to be an international spy (lots of gadgets, cool)
Looks nice
Kiwi connection, Karl Urban and Marton Csokas

Bad bits:
I know they are all very serious people with serious jobs, but they dont have to act like complete robots, we aren't robots are we?
Gripes mentioned above that dont really apply to anything because its been an age since I read the book and cant remeber what happens in it :(

I couldn't talk about the film too much as every part of it is germane to the plot. It is good film though, think of it as how James Bond shold have been (and how the earlier Bond films actually were) instead of turning into a circus carnival entertaining freakshow :)

AVP
Woohoo and about damn time . . . Some mildly serious Spoilers can be found below....

Ever since Predator 2 (and probably earlier) where you see an Alien trophy skull fans of both iconic series have been waiting for the combination of the two. So did they do a good job, well you have an English director who has done some excellent scifi material Paul W. S. Anderson (Resident Evil and Event Horizon how was this so creepy when it didn't even have spiders in it??!!?!?!), you have the architects of Predator Jim and John Thomas, and Alien Dan O'Bannon and Ronald Shusett and Mr Lance Henriksen (check this "With _Alien Vs. Predator (2004)_ , he joins actor Bill Paxton as one of the only two actors to be killed or assaulted by a Terminator (Terminator (1984)), an Alien (Aliens (1986)) and finally a Predator.") ouch, go Lance :)

Ok lots of creative horsepower, only problem I see there is that squabbles could start between the alien and predator camps, seriously how the hell would you decide something like that, either way they managed to bang a script out and get a director who knows scifi. Next thing cast, Im not sure what it s but when you add a bunch of European actors (AVP was shot around Prague) along with some token Americans it just makes the blend that much better, Sanaa Lathan plays Alexa (everybody do what I say when I say it and we might live through this) (and immediately everyone does their own thing regardless...she needed to kick some ass ala Ripley style) Woods. Ewen (Spud) Bremmer and Tommy (wickedest facial scar onscreen today) Flanagan ham and corn it up magnificently, want to see pictures of my kids??? cackle :) Raoul Bova gives a solid performance, as does Lance, everyone else is cannonfodder unfortunately.

Visually its pretty stunning, the external temple sequence is especially cool, and the flashback to when the Predators first arrive. Its mostly dark (the tagline for Alien was "in space noone can hear you scream" unoffically IMHO you could add "and in an Alien film you cant see that much either". The motion camera work could have been more evolutionary than revolutionary, the Aliens films did some very cool things with camera work, and that needed to be extended through AVP, and by logical progression through the editing process aswell, did it feel disjointed in places to people aswell, well maybe not disjointed but somewhat lacking one sequence not flowing into the next, ahh maybe its me being picky.

Good bits:
AVP it finally happened!
fun trip
corn, Watties farm style (we have to survive for our kids! oh yea you *know* what is going to happen when someone says something
like that :))
ummmmm fuck it, I liked it even if it gets binned by critics and trashed by reviewers

Bad bits:
too short
not quite seamless flow of plot (nitypicky film nerd criticisms)
Predators getting tarred by aliens, seriously if they hunt them for sport and get their asses whipped that badly how are there any left??
Because chris they have big fuckoff nuclear bombs strapped to their wrists...
Ahh ok, that makes sense, if your going to loose you may as well atomic the chessboard when you go.

While it wasn't perfect it was good, and was nice to see a full theatre and no serious ribbing at the end by the audience. The most common thing that people have said about it is how its wide open for a sequel. There is hope, they managed to combine two fairly different film tastes sucessfully (ie it did make it to theatres) if audiences like what they saw then then 20 Foxy Centuries will make some more. Me I would like to see a directors cut, to do AVP true justice.

Laters :)

http://www.scifiscripts.com/scripts/aliens_vs_predator.txt (not the one seen in theatres, but how cool would this have been??)
http://www.script-o-rama.com/snazzy/dircut.html

The Village
I read some of the user comments on IMDB before writing this, the main comment (I would love to know what makes one comment the foremost one, especially when it is negative towards the film, especially when its the one you would base a decision to see a film on) was of the opinion that The Village (hereforth known as ThV) was a boring thriller horror film.

I respectfully disagree what M. Night Shyamalan has created in his films since Sixth Sense is his own unique style of film-telling, ThV is perfectly consistent in this style. There is a senior character a learned gentleman (usually) who gives the story direction, and there is a younger fervent soul that is the student to the senior characters teachings. A malignant force permeates the story until it is personified understood combated or accepted. If you go to see ThV to be shitscared that isn't going to happen, it very loosely follows the slasher genre that maybe the film has been targeted as over here. It moves much more slowly, which is great :) you get the opportunity to immerse yourself in the film, try and understand what is going on, relate to the characters, absorb some of the beautiful cinematography, in essence relax. So much about seeing a film is commercialised and rushed, which may be why people are indecisive about whether ThV is good film, not everyone likes to go and see a film that moves slowly, has no guns, no computer generated imagery, just actors on set relying on they capabilities to invigorate the film.

The cast includes William Hurt who is an awsome actor (keep getting him confused with Jeff Bridges, oh if you havn't seen it 'Fearless' is a great watch) Joaquin Phoenix Adrien Brody Sigourney Weaver and Brendan Gleeson, Bryce Dallas Howard scene steals whenever she is onscreen, she got a great role and plays it to perfection.

Good bits:
good cast
an interesting story
shot beautifully (colour is used within the story as well as by the camera)

Bad bits:
slow moving for some

Why is the sun still up??

ThV I guess could be best considered as a mystery film with a twist, as all the Shyamalan films you sit through them to see the story unfold and what the twist at the end is, and congratulate yourself at the end if you guessed correctly. To date he has used afterlife, and extra-terrestials (sorry I havn't seen Unbreakable), ThV explores a different social characteristic and in the end the result is positive interesting and satisfying :)

Advertisement