It seems that once you open the doors of the retirement village, one field trip is not enough. The old boys are back.
I must give credit to Sylvester Stallone. Many people had written him of as an old has been who was past his prime. But with 'The Expendables' he has managed to resurrect his career. His talent has not changed much over the years as evidenced by these films. There is very little by way of plot and is just a vague excuse to kill bad guys and blow stuff up. Despite this lack of depth it some how works. Action films with lots of twists and complex characters are all well and good but occasionally you don't mind seeing something dumb. As long as it is fun then there is nothing wrong with that. Simon West is a skilled enough action director to not be bogged down by plot and just let his stars kill people indiscriminately. The action is good but not great and there is nothing special about it. I do think that the allure is in the cast.
Seeing all these old action heroes in the one film, I must admit, gives me a thrill. You always imagine what it would be like to see them together and you now get the chance. Sylvester Stallone has been around long enough to command a great presence on screen. He does not have to do or say much for you to know that he is in charge. His rapport with Jason Statham is excellent too. They really feel like life long friends who have been through a lot together. Dolph Lundgren makes a good comedy lunk head. Liam Hemsworth makes a sweet addition to the team. The biggest thrill was seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis fighting along side each other. Their scene together was quite well staged and pretty fun. I'm not sure what to make of Chuck Norris's appearance in the film. The way he comes in and out of the film made very little sense. Perhaps it was a scheduling issue. Jean-Claude Van Damme makes a great villain after playing good guys so much.
Park your brains at the door and just go have fun with this unashamedly dumb action film. It is good to let your mind go occasionally.
We're men. Manly men. We're men in tights. We rome around the forest looking for fights. We're men. We're men in tights. We rob from the rich and give to the poor. That's right.
Stories based on legends are interesting because of the many ways that they can be interpreted. As far as film versions of the Robin Hood legend, this one made in 1938 pretty much set the benchmark for all that followed. It is one of the most beloved films of all time and can be seen on many peoples all time favourite movie lists. In some ways I can see why. It has an element that was missing from the recent Ridley Scott version which is fun. Many other interpretations kept this sense of fun going as well. This sense of fun manifests in the violence depicted. 'The Adventures Of Robin Hood' is not a very violent film considering the story. While there are lots of sword fights and some light stabbing, the more popular way for Robin and his men to attack Sir Guy and his men is to jump on them from a great height. I found this to be a funny way to attack someone.
My only critism and it is something that many films from the past have, is that they do not seem terribly authentic. I am mostly speaking of the costumes and some of the production design. Lots of westerns have the same problem where they dress like someone from the time the film was made not when it was set. For a group of people who need to act stealthy, Robin and his merry men dress in very bright clothes. Robin dresses in green but it is a bright green which would stand out if he was trying to hide. Then again Sir Guy and his men who are looking for Robin seem to take a very light approach to their work. More modern versions seem authentic and choose costumes that seem more appropriate.
I am ashamed to say that this is the first film starring fellow Aussie Errol Flynn that I have seen. Over the years his off screen legend has in some ways over taken his on screen one. I can see why people love him so much if this film is anything to go by. His performance pitches Robin in the right way by making him playful and incredibly charismatic. There are very few times where he does not have a smile on his face. Olivia de Havilland makes a nice Maid Marion. While she is playing the damsel in distress role that many women of the time played, she still still very feisty. Claude Rains fits the role of villain very well. He plays the cockiness and arrogance well. The only problem being that he does not come of as much of a threat to Robin. That threat is better done by Basil Rathbone as Sir Guy. But that threat is not enough as you still know Robin will win. I did not get much of a sense of jeopardy from them.
While it is one of those films that is a bit 'of its time', this is still a fun interpretation of the Robin Hood legend. A must for film buffs to see how the legend has changed over time.
Writer/director Whit Stillman made a few films in the 1990's that looked at young people navigating relationships with wit and sophistication. After a 13 year absence he returns.
I'm not sure what it is but I think I'm off my game. That game being the appreciation of off-centre films. Normally I would find these types of films great but much like 'Holy Motors' I just did not 'get' this film. The plot sounds interesting and feels like it has a lot of potential but a few things bothered me. I got no real sense of when the film was set. The plot is about a group of women trying to change the masculine nature of their college. It seems that the college has only just become co-ed so the implication being that it was once a male dominated college and the girls want to change that. If the film is set today, then I was not aware that colleges like that still existed. The girls dress and behave like they would if the film was set in the past But there are a few pieces of technology that means it might be set today. The characters are a bit unusual too with traits that do not make sense. They all feel very flat and speak in a dry way with hardly any emotion. The only one that seems to be different is Lily because she is an outsider to the group. The most baffling one though is a guy in a fraternity who can't recognise colour, like he does not know the names of them. There was a very lame explanation given but it made no sense. The best thing about the film is the musical number that ends it. But sadly this is too little too late.
Greta Gerwig gives a nicely dry performance but is let down by the lack of wit in the script. The other girls are quite good too but I just wish they had something better to work with. Analeigh Tipton manages to rise above the lack of character and make her performance as Lily to be very sweet and endearing. The men sadly do not come off as well either. As mentioned above they have some strange character traits, so perhaps they cannot perform well enough to make them convincing.
The time away from the screen has not been kind to Whit Stillman. I think he has lost his skill and knack for making great movies.
There have been many films made based on American and English TV series. 'Kath & Kim' has been a huge success on TV in Australia, so it was inevitable that they made the leap to the big screen.
Gina Reilly and Jane Turner are considered to be television comedy royalty in Australia, largely due to their TV series on which this film is based. However before that they made names for themselves on sketch comedy shows that are very highly regarded. But this experience could have been their downfall. Gina and Jane's writing experience is in television so I do not think they were properly equipped to handle a film script. Judging by the film's credits they have used the same team that they used to make the television series. This can be both a good thing and a bad thing. On the one hand you have a group of people who know the characters and their story quite well so are equipped to know what they can and can't do. I do not know the full behind the scenes story but I think the women needed some outside help with the script and getting it up to full cinematic quality. The premise of a fairy tale is quite sweet and cute but the plot and general story is quite weak. and not enough to sustain a feature film. An example of this is the inclusion of two characters that Gina and Jane also play called Prude and Trude. These characters are wasted and get occasional scenes where all they seem to do is show off their ridiculous upper class accents. It would have been better if they had their a plot or one which either mirrored or added to the main plot with Kath and Kim. As it is, all they are there for is to pad out the main plot. Another annoying element for me was the way they tried to find a way to keep Kel and Brett at home. Kel for some reason in the film is afraid of flying. He can't even go to the airport cause it frightens him. But in the TV series there was an episode where they go to a Queensland resort which I'm assuming he would have flown to. There is another episode where Kath and Kel spend a holiday stuck at the airport. I would not have minded them keeping Kel at home but they should have come up with a better way of doing it that stayed true to the TV series. Another example of lazing writing.
The core cast are excellent and know these characters so well that they give wonderful performances. All Jane Turner seems to do these days is play Kath and while I love her in that role I'd prefer to see her do more. Gina Reilly though is one of my all time favourite comedic actresses in Australia. Kim is a really horrid woman and Gina manages to play that quality to a degree that she is able to bring out the funny side of it so that you don't hate her completely. As mentioned above the characters of Kel and Brett are sidelined for most of the film. This is disappointing as Glenn Robbins and Peter Rowsthorn are excellent actors who deserved better. I heard that Richard E Grant is such a huge fan of the TV series that he agreed to do this film before reading the script. I think he should have read the script first. His character has some cute quirks but is not fully realized. Magda Szubanski is not only one of the best comedic actresses who ever lived but comes across as a wonderful person too. Recently she came out of the closet so I'm not sure if Gina and Jane decided to make Sharon gay as a result of this but I did not like that they did this. I know they would need a character arc or plot for Sharon but I'm disappointed once again that they went with the obvious. I think that Magda is a good enough actor that as a gay person she can play a heterosexual character. Rob Sitch is another excellent performer who is not given decent material. The film is almost worth seeing for a cameo appearance by comedian Frank Woodley.
It is very disappointing when television stars are unable to make the leap to the big screen. I expected so much more from a group of comedians who I hold in very high regard.
Considering the talent involved there was quite high expectations for this film. But perhaps because of a title change due to a real life incident involving a Neighbourhood Watch group, the film was a big flop.
When making a film you bring together all the elements in the hope that magic happens and a great film is made. In 'The Watch' you have some great elements coming together like the cast and a good premise for them to play with. Sadly it did not work out. I would be interested to know how much of this script was improvised. This seems to be the trend lately with comedies where scenes have the dialogue improvised. I'm getting the feeling that this technique does not always work. While there are a few funny moments, overall there are not enough to make the film hilarious. It sometimes looks like they are searching for a funny line to say. This can get a bit tedious. Perhaps the mixture of genres did not make a tasty meal either.
For me Ben Stiller is funnier when he is playing a wacky character. As an average guy he is less effective, like here. Vince Vaugh does his usual manic shtick. He has some very funny lines though. Jonah Hill is rather subdued and does not get many funny moments. The real star is Richard Ayoade. I've been a fan of his from the TV series 'The IT Crowd' and I'm glad he has finally made it to the big screen. His dry delivery makes for some of the funniest lines in the film considering the rest of the cast are playing it really crazy. Pity his performance is overshadowed by the rest of the film.
Not as terrible as you may have heard. But still very disappointing despite the who made it.
I'm not sure if it is by default or by design but Colin Farrell seems to be starring in lots of films that are remakes. This time he is replacing Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Hollywood is an environment that is filled with fear. No one is willing to take risks and make films which are unique and different. Instead we get an endless parade of remakes and sequels. I'm not opposed to remakes and/or sequels but it just gets a bit tiring when that is all studios seem to make. I also think that they need to be made more interesting and different to the original. Most of the films Len Wiseman has made has been part of the 'Underworld' series so I have not seen many of them. I did however enjoy the work he did on 'Live Free Or Die Hard'. That cannot be said of this film. I found this remake of 'Total Recall' to be incredibly boring and uninteresting. It is mostly a man being chased through a futuristic city but Len has not managed to film it in any dynamic way. I admit that the films production design is the best thing about it. The city looks quite spectacular and I thought the way it was designed was very impressive. But a great background does not help what is happening in the foreground.
Despite being in a very bland film I did quite like Colin Farrell's performance. He manages to convey an everyman quality which is what the role needs. Even though he is doing extraordinary stunts he still feels like an average guy. Len's wife Kate Beckinsale is very bitchy in her role as the villain's hench-person. The same cannot be said of Colin's sidekick Jessica Biel. She does not have much to do except tag a long with Colin. Bryan Cranston is not given a character that suits his talents. He gives a nice amount of menace but not in a very effective way that makes you fear him.
Another reason why remakes should not be done. Just another generic action film that does not try to be different. But it does look pretty.
Mark Duplass has been a very busy boy this year. He has acted in around five films as well as writing and directing one. This is one of his acting only films.
If there is one thing that films have taught us is that a man and a woman cannot be 'just friends'. It seems that in in almost every film where a couple start out as friends they end up together as lovers by the end. Unless one of the couple is gay. With this type of predictability, the film becomes more about the journey rather than how it ends. 'Your Sister's Sister' has an interesting journey because writer director Lynn Shelton has created some great characters who we become interested in. The film is mostly just three people in a cabin in the woods for a weekend so with very little plot you are mostly concentrated on characters. Jack is carrying a lot of baggage after the death of his brother. He makes an excellent speech at the beginning of the film which endeared me to him immediately. Iris is his best friend and a very nice girl who offers a quiet place for Jack to go. A spanner in placed in the works when Jack runs into Iris's sister Hannah and they sleep together. It is one of the more interesting complications to a relationship. One which provides many great hurdles to their ultimate happiness. Luckily Lynn also gives this threesome some great dialogue and interesting conversations. This is good for a film that is all about talking.
Many of you may not know Mark Duplass but I'm sure you'll hear about him soon. He plays the average guy so well. Jack is a nice guy who is just a bit confused about his relationships. Mark plays him with a great deal of wit and charm. Emily Blunt is delightful as always. Rosemarie DeWitt is fast becoming popular too. I really like her in this role and she is very funny.
If you like your romantic comedies a little bit more low key then this is the film for you. It has very little action so it is for those who like sparkling dialogue.
Director William Friedkin has been a little quite of late. Not making as many films as he used to back in the 1970's. But I don't think he has lost his talent.
There seems to be two schools of thought as regards being in debt. There are those who avoid it and run away from who ever they owe money to. Then there are those who try to come up with a way to get themselves out of the debt crisis. Most of the time the scheme is hair brained and complications arise.
People who live in trailers have not been well served by films. They are always being depicted as dumb. 'Killer Joe' does not break that stereotype. The Smith family are not exactly well furnished in the brains department and Chris is possibly the dumbest because of the crazy scheme he comes up with to pay off a drug debt. His father admits to being dumb but Chris is dumber because of the stupid scheme he comes up with. Writer Tracy Letts has taken these characters and this plot to craft a wonderfully trashy comedy. Friedkin has then gone and added some brutal violence to the mix and you get a really delightful piece of cinema. Tracy has created some wonderfully trashy characters that you just have to laugh at with their idiotic behaviour. there is however a real spanner in their works and that comes in the form of Joe Cooper. He is one of the most scarily creepy characters ever put onto film. He is definitely a man taking advantage of these dumb people and while he is very sadistic in his approach you can't help but be amused. That is the dark side in me.
This group of actors can play dumb really well. Emile Hirsch gives Chris some sense of believability that makes you think his crazy scheme might work. Thomas Hayden Church is excellent as always. His character admits to being dumb which he plays well. Gina Gershon has played some trashy women in her career and this one is no different. I have to respect her fro some of the things her character has to go through at the end of the film. Juno Temple treads a fine line with her character. Dottie is 'not quite there' mentally and so can be taken advantage of. Her family don't treat her all that well but do show her love. Juno is able to play that aloofness really well and still show flashes of intelligence like she does know what is going on. The real reason to see this film though is Matthew McConaughey. I don't know what has happened but Matthew has been making some brilliant choices with his roles lately. He just keeps getting better with each performance. I think this is the first time that Matthew has played a bad guy and I don't think you get get someone more evil than this. The way he treats this family and takes advantage of them is a thing of beauty. His encounter with Gina's character Sharla is amazing. It will change the way you think about KFC.
The violence is shocking and it may turn you off KFC or fried chicken in general but this still an excellent comedy/thriller. Matthew McConaughey's performance is worth the price of admission.
Thankfully classic film series that are running at cinemas are putting in a Hitchcock film as part of their program. Which means, thankfully, I get to experience these films on the big screen.
Something I've noticed about Alfred Hitchcock's films is that he likes to keep his audience off guard. It is a technique that I think many film makers these days have lost. 'Psycho' begins safely as a crime drama about a woman who stealing money from her boss before nicely segueing into a horror film about a serial killer. In 'The Birds' he uses much the same technique. The film begins rather innocently as a delightful romantic comedy then moves into a horror film. It is a little bit creepy how Melanie follows Mitch to his family home in order to deliver him a bird. But we learn that she is a rich woman who is prone to pulling pranks. This is obviously a woman who has far too much time on her hands. Perhaps what happens when she goes to the town of Bodega Bay is punishment for her crazy ways. If Melanie occupied her time with more worthy pursuits then she would not have gone there and get attacked by birds. Hitchcock also doesn't explain why the birds are behaving so aggressively. I'm a bit conflicted as to how I feel about this. On the one hand it is nice that everything is not explained but on the other it would have been good to get some indication as to why now and why there that the birds are behaving so badly. The one thing that Hitchcock does really well is scare you. The ending to the film is incredibly scary. The fear has been building up slowly over the film and so when our heroes must escape it is so tense. It is also one of the most referenced and parodied scenes in film so it is good to see how the original is done.
This is the debut of Tippi Hedren on film and she is excellent. Tippi plays the spoiled rich girl very well. Rod Taylor makes an wonderful partner for Tippi to play off. Their flirting is nicely played and while you know they will end up together there is a great deal of fun in their journey of falling in love. While the character is a bit of a cliche, Jessica Tandy plays the 'mother-in-law' role really well. This is also one of the first roles for Veronica Cartwright and she is excellent.
It may not be the greatest Hitchcock film but it is still much better than many films being made these days. I think a lot of directors need to study his methods as many modern films lack the tension these older films have.
The Three Stooges are a comedy group that are very highly respected in the comedy community. They are widely regarded as the epitome of slapstick comedy. Any attempt to recreate that was going to come under a great deal of scrutiny.
I have long been a fan of the Farrelly Brothers. I think they are excellent comedy directors. It seems their attempt to bring back The Three Stooges has been in development for ages. At various stages they had some very famous names attached. However it seems they ended up with some lesser known actors which is not a bad thing.
As far as comedy goes I am more of a verbal comedy fan than a visual comedy fan. That is not to say I hate visual comedy but I prefer the spoken word or clever line. So while this film is mostly visual comedy and slapstick I found myself enjoying it more than I expected. The Farrelly Brothers and their co-writer Mike Cerrone have come up with some excellent comedic set pieces that are really funny. Most of the time you know where they are going you don't mind as they are still funny. What I liked most was how respectful they are of the original Three Stooges especially in structure. The Farrelly Brothers have divided the film into three sections, so it plays like three shorter films. Much like the original Stooges films were played. The only element that seems a bit out of place was the inclusion of the 'Jersey Shore' TV series as a plot element. It felt a bit tacky.
Sean Hayes, Chris Diamantopoulos and Will Sasso not only look remarkably like their older counterparts but they work really well as a comedy team. You would think that they were the original Stooges come back to life. The Farrelly Brothers have also gotten some wonderful supporting actors. Jane Lynch and Jennifer Hudson mostly play straight to Stooges antics but they are very good. The best performance though is by Larry David. He is hilarious as one of the nuns at the orphanage. He is essentially playing the female version of himself but it is incredibly funny.
It may not come across as terribly sophisticated humour and is mostly aimed at kids, but this is still an excellent comedy.
With all the blockbusters we get in our cinemas, you often forget that film is an art form as well. I'm sure all film makers say they are making art but some films are more obviously arty than others.
I am often criticised (affectionately) by friends for the bizarre tastes I have in films. I wear this characterisation with pride. I like films that are unconventional and different to the norm. I also like films that are strange and unusual. However, there comes a point when things get too bizarre even for me. 'Holy Motors' is one such film. The film is about a guy who travels around Paris in a limousine performing in various scenarios. Some seem fairly normal or conventional but others are just plain weird. As I said I don't mind weird or bizarre films but I feel there must be some context for the behaviour. There could be some hidden meaning behind the film's weirdness but I just did not get it. I am usually able to understand what a film is about but this is one that just went over my head. I did not understand the context of what the 'performer' was doing what he was doing, why he was doing it and for who. At one point there is a hint that there could be cameras watching him, the implication being that he is performing 'for' someone, but for who? He does do some really strange things so there must be others in on the situation too. I have come to accept that people like to see and do bizarre things but I did not understand why someone would want to see what this man does. I'm sure the film is not set in our world but in one that exists in a parallel universe. But it is one I do not understand.
I must give credit to Denis Lavant for taking on this role. He must not only do some incredibly bizarre things but also undergoes many different make-up changes. Perhaps if I understood the film better I could appreciate what he was doing a bit more. I must also give respect to Eva Mendes for being part of this film. You would not expect a Hollywood actress like her to be a part of a film like this, especially considering she has to perform in the film's strangest scene. Kylie Minogue does a good job too but like the rest of the film I was not able to pick up on what her scene was trying to say.
If someone could go see this film and possibly explain it to me then it might help. Bizarre does not even begin to describe it.
Australia seems to be having a great run of excellent films this year. That continues with this feel good true story.
It is so great to see all these movies being made about indigenous Australians. The greatest thing though is that people are going to see them. Admittedly it is the feel good ones that do better but it is still great to see them. I don't think many people would know about this story of four Aboriginal girls going to entertain the troops during the Vietnam War. While the film does take the conventional path it is still an interesting story. Writers Tony Briggs and Keith Thompson have infused the film with some political subplots as well as giving each of the girls great character traits. The only problem I had was that there was little said about what the reaction was to the girls back home. Did anyone know they were over there? Also in there was no mention of the girls singing career after they got home. Did it continue or just stop?
All the girls in the film are brilliant in their roles. I think Deborah Mailman has replaced Bill Hunter as the actor required to appear in every Aussie film. She is excellent as the feisty member of the group. Miranda Tapsell is great as the sassy one who always wants to have fun. Poor Shari Sebbens gets lumbered with the thankless task of falling for an incredibly good looking American soldier. I was disappointed with Jessica Mauboy. Not so much with her performance as such but just with the fact that she has very little to do but sing. The other girls get more meaty parts to play where as Jessica seems to be there just to sing. The film is stolen by the phenomenal performance of Chris O'Dowd. I have long been a fan of his from the TV series 'The IT Crowd' and he has mostly done comedic work. This is the first time I've seen him do something more dramatic and he is brilliant at it. This film proves he can be more versatile and I hope to see him do more in the future.
Firm proof that this new resurgence of Aussie films just keeps on coming. Highly recommended for all those who think we can only make miserable dramas.
Most of the Hollywood studios these days are obsessed with franchises. Which leads to a reboot when the central talent of a series decides to leave.
I have not been much of a fan of the Bourne series. While I loved 'The Bourne Identity', I made the really dumb mistake of reading 'The Bourne Supremacy' before watching the movie. The only similarity between the book and the film was that they had the same title and a character called Jason Bourne. This was something I never quite understood. The plot of the book was far superior to the film. It was really clever and thrilling. Why would you go to all the trouble of buying a series of books and only use them for the title? In that film and 'The Bourne Ultimatum' I thought they were decent films and nothing more. They had good action scenes but the plot was very ordinary. It was then with very low expectations that I went to see 'The Bourne Legacy'.
Rebooting a series can be a tricky business. You need to come up with a sensible way to continue the story that has already reached a natural finish. Writer/ director Tony Gilroy has managed to come up with a really good way to keep the Treadstone story going. I found myself enjoying this film a lot more than I expected. The plot is more complex than previous films and is all the better for it. I was continually surprised by the many plot twists that Tony had come up with for Alex Cross to over come. I felt there was a great deal more intelligence in the plotting. The action scenes I enjoyed more too as they were less chaotic and more easy to follow. I am also a huge fan of motorcycle chases and this film features an excellent one.
Jeremy Renner has become the go-to-guy for action hero films these days. He seems to be everywhere. The character of Alex Cross is very serious minded so that suit Jeremy very well. He is not a cheery fellow. Alex is someone who has been genetically engineered too be a soldier and so comes across as very emotionless and that suits Jeremy. I was a little bit disappointed with Rachel Weisz. Her character does not have all that much to do except be Jeremy's side-kick and she does not do much to make her character unique. I was pleased with Edward Norton's performance. He does not play the role in a nasty way which is how it could have been done. Although he is the 'bad guy' of the film, Edward does not play the character that way and you come to like him.
It is good to see an intelligent action thriller these days. I perhaps enjoyed this more than I expected because of the low expectations.
It is very rare that a gay themed film is given a cinema release. It is also rare that we get a film from South Africa. So it is a pleasant surprise to see both in the one film.
Francois van Heerden comes from an older generation where it was harder to come out of the closet. He has to keep his true feelings suppressed. Francois has a seemingly normal life with a wife, children a successful business. He has managed to keep his true desires secret with the occasional visit to a men's group. This type of suppression is not necessarily healthy, which is why things reach a boil when Francois meets Christian. Christian is a very handsome young man and you can understand why Francois becomes fascinated with him. But because Francois is so incredibly deeply in the closet that there is no chance he will ever reveal his true feelings. This also means that there is a lot of pent up emotions here.
Director and co-writer Oliver Hermanus has made a brilliant thriller about one man's obsession. We have all fallen in love with a beautiful person so on some level we know where Francois obsession comes from. What this films shows us is how this obsession effects one man. Francois is very much like a dangerous animal stalking his prey. Many of the scenes are filmed from Francois' point of view and just linger on what ever he is seeing. This gives the film an incredibly creepy quality. Oliver also gives the film a nicely slow pace which lets us see Francois slowly simmer with his obsession. Naturally this means it leads to boiling point in a very disturbing scene. What happens after that is my only problem with the film. I felt the ending was unsatisfactory.
As Francois Dean Lotz gives an amazing brilliant performance. While he does come across as creepy and sleazy in some of his behaviour you learn to appreciate why he is the way he is. Dean is does not do a lot except look on longingly as his prey. But is is the way he looks which makes him so brilliant. Charlie Keegan is delightful as the object of desire. He plays it so well and you really feel for him when Francois' feelings are fully revealed.
There is some pretty shocking imagery but this is a truly brilliant character study of a man who is unable to reveal his true feelings. A good lesson in finding a way to be brave.
