Advertising has always played a very important role in politics. But never has it been more important than in a referendum in Chile in 1988.
While I was aware that Augusto Pinochet was an evil dictator, I was not aware of the details of his reign in Chile. This film focuses on the interesting way that he was deposed by his people. You do not expect advertising executives to play such an important role in a countries history. But that is explored here with 'No'. Director Pablo Larrain has deeply immersed his film in the look and feel of the 1980's. He has used the 1.33:1 aspect ratio as well as using video cameras to film it so that it has a grainy look. This gives the film a very documentary feel as if it was made in the 1980's. Pablo also gives the fairly serious story a light hearted touch. It is not outright funny but the style of advertising that is used in the campaign is on the lighter side. They use a more positive approach and show people how happy they can be if they vote no.
Gael Garcia Bernal is very popular at the moment. He gives a nice performance here and manages to project being an average person despite being so good looking. He does not act like typical advertising executives you normally see portrayed on screen. The rest of the cast are excellent as well.
A very important historical moment that is portrayed in a unique way.
It has been a long held debate as to how much influence film critics have on the success of a film. There are some they can influence and others they cannot.
There are two film critics in Australia who I admire and respect more than any others in the world, they are Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton. Each week they have a movie review show which I watch religiously. They know about film and while I may not always agree with their opinion I respect it because they know what they are talking about. As you can imagine there are lots of films out there to see and I do not always have the time to see every film that is released. Usually I know enough about a film to know that I will not enjoy it and I'll avoid it. But occasionally there are films that I need to rely on someone else's opinion to help decide if I should go see a film. This is one such film. Margaret and David's opinion of the film helped me decide to see it. They did not like the film all that much, but the way they described it got me intrigued. To say this film is subtle is putting it mildly. The film is about a couple on a hiking trip in the Caucasus Mountains. They have a guide who is helping them on their trip. The film is just mostly the three of them walking. An incident happens which changes the tone of the film but that's about all. Even the incident is not fully explained. We do not know much about the couple either but just that they are about to get married. Despite all that boring subtlety I still sat through the entire film. I knew that there was an 'incident' so for the first half of the film I felt a great deal of tension as I waited for something to happen. I did not know what sort of 'incident' it was going to be so was on the edge of my seat waiting for it to happen. I must say that writer director Julia Loktev does a great job with changing the tone of the film in the second half after the 'incident'. You can really feel the tension in the way the characters act and behave.
Julia has chosen a very good looking and charming couple to play our leads. Gael Garcia Bernal is familiar to you from other films but Hani Furstenberg is probably not. Despite that they make a nice average looking couple. Despite the fact that we know very little about them you still come to care about them over the film. Especially after the 'incident'. Bidzina Gujabidze does is good as their guide. He makes a suitably creepy presence that keeps you on edge, making you think he might do something to our lovely couple.
Worth seeing if you want to see a film that is vastly different to most films you have seen. Open to many different interpretations so it might not be the type of film for you if you like things fully explained.
You are continually hearing in the news stories of people who have their identity stolen. So it was strange that it took so long for Hollywood to make a film about it.
Writers Craig Mazin and Jerry Eeten have come up with an excellent idea here for a comedy. It is a shame they are not able to live up to the concept. The set up is well done with an average guy going after a woman who has stolen his name and racked up a huge credit card bill. The fact that Diana is a fairly lightweight thief does diminish the tension a little. But this is a comedy so she cannot be too threatening like you expect most identity thieves to be. One of the many problems with the script is that Craig and Jerry felt that the personality clash between Sandy and Diana as well as their forced road trip was not enough conflict for the film they had to go and add a bounty hunter and two drug dealers as well. Those extra characters do not really add to the story and really only pad out an already overly long film. You could easily cut these people out of the film and it would not have much effect. Also sadly Craig and Jerry have not made the film very funny. Director Seth Gordon has done an excellent job in the past with making films very funny but he does not seem to be able to do that here.
While Jason Bateman pretty much plays the same character in all his films he usually does it with a great deal of humour. Sadly, as mentioned above, he is let down by a very unfunny script. His character is a little bit week willed as well and not a forceful as he should have been. However Melissa McCarthy gets most of the good laughs just by being the outrageous character she is. It is almost worth seeing the film just for her. The rest of the cast have small roles but do not make much impact. Except maybe Eric Stonestreet as a guy Diana picks up in a bar.
I feel that this is one of those films that seems funnier in a crowded cinema. Sometimes a film needs a laugh track to remind you when to laugh.
Throughout his career director Steven Spielberg has redefined the (American) summer blockbuster. 20 years ago he did it with this film.
There is a trend at the moment to convert some old films into 3D. Some have worked while others have not. 'Jurassic Park' is one of those films that, despite being made 20 years ago, was made to be converted into 3D. I remember seeing 'Jurassic Park' at the midnight screening the day it was released. I remember coming out of the film in such a euphoric state at being totally blown away. While my reaction was a little bit more subdued this time it was still a great experience seeing this film on the big screen again. I think seeing it in IMAX helped. Steven is certainly a skilled film maker at making tense and thrilling films. He knows how to build tension and make situations really scary. One of my biggest joys when this film was released was to go into the cinema at the scene when Ellie goes to the power shed to turn the power on. Seeing a whole cinema of people jump as a raptor goes to attack her was hilarious. I know that there is a lot of criticism over computer generated work being done on old films. But for me the only problem I had with the film was the old, out dated technology. Maybe if Steven allowed them to update the computer and graphics it would seem more modern. Other than that the film is quite timeless.
Most of the cast was not very well known when the film was released. But people did not go to see the cast. Sam Neill is excellent as the gruff scientist whose whole world is changed by his visit to the park. Sam is not only good at emotional moments but is a great action hero too. Equally as good is Laura Dern. She does an excellent job at the action scenes and makes great use of the sexual tension with Sam. Jeff Goldblum provides most of the films humour and is very good at it. Even if he does seem to mumble most of his lines. Richard Attenborough is a great rival to Jeff as they have different visions of the park. Equally as good is Samuel L. Jackson and Wayne Knight in roles before they became famous for other works.
A perfect example of a film that needs to be seen on the big screen. The 3D adds to the already quite exciting film.
Tom Cruise has been a bit busy lately with films coming out quite frequently. He is once again saving the earth.
I really hated this film. My problems with it stem, largely, from the script. I am a script writer and for me this is one of the most badly written films I have seen for a major blockbuster style film, in a long time. I had trouble with the film right from the beginning. One of the biggest 'don'ts' that we are told in script writing is to not use voice over unless it is absolutely necessary. Film is a visual medium and you should tell your story visually. The film opens with our hero Jack explaining how earth came to be like it is. Instead of showing us we get Jack telling us. I'm not sure if it was done this way because of budget cuts and director Joseph Kosinski was forced to set up the story in this way, but to me it was incredibly bad script writing. It would have been a very spectacular opening to the film is we saw it being attacked by aliens. Then the rest of the film did nothing to try and get me back on side. Not only was the story very clichéd and predictable but it had so many boring and uninteresting characters. I was really bored by the film in this aspect. However I did find one redeeming feature which was the way the film looked. I think the production design and visual effects were wonderful. It is a shame that this great world has been populated by really uninteresting people and have them do things you have seen numerous times before and done in better ways.
I have come to like Tom Cruise a lot more than I used to in recent times. He gives a good performance here with in the limitations of his boring character. Sadly Tom was not able to make his character anymore interesting that what is on the page. His side-kick Adrea Riseborough is very good in a quiet dignified way. She manages to make her character slightly more interesting as she shows some shades of dimension. Olga Kurylenko is decent as the love interest. Morgan Freeman is unable to make his small role anything special. But I think his character's story would have made a more interesting film.
I would say to avoid this film at all costs but I think my overly critical script writing mind has made it worse than it is.
The French just seem to have a knack for making great romantic films. Co-writer and director Jacques Audiard has certainly made a great one here. It is a fairly simple story with two wonderful characters at its centre. Stephanie and Alain are broken people. Stephanie's problem is more obvious and physical as opposed to Alain's which is emotional. They have a chance meeting which brings them together. What I loved most about this film was the realness of the story. You get desensitizes by the glossiness of romantic stories. Where as this one is more like a docu-drama. It feels like a more natural story and not one that has been carefully orchestrated to push certain emotional buttons. There is however a cute kid and animal that ruins that theory. You don't really see them falling in love as you do with most films. This is especially true of Alain who does not show his emotions in an obvious way. But you know deep down he really likes Stephanie. There is a major plot point that you should try to not find out about if you can before seeing this film. But let me say that the special effects involved in achieving the results of this event are perhaps the best I've ever seen in a film.
Marion Cotillard does not just try to ruin Gotham city. She also gives brilliant performances in movies in her home country. I don't think it is possible that she can give a bad performance. Marion shows a great deal of emotional range as she falls for a man who seems so wrong for her. As her companion in this emotional journey Matthias Schoenaerts is equally as brilliant. He gives such a raw emotional performance as a man struggling to form connections with the people around him. Even when he stuffs things up.
A brilliant romantic drama for those who want something a bit different to the run of the mill Hollywood films.
The recent spate of fairytales being turned into action films continues with this reworking of 'Jack And The Beanstalk'.
Despite Bryan Singer being at the helm and a huge budget, this film was released with very little fan fare. The release date was changed so that is sometimes a bad sign. But I must say that I enjoyed the film a lot more than I thought I would. I found it to be lots of fun and it had some excellent action scenes. Being in 3D also helped make the action more thrilling. There was, however, a problem with the films tone. It does not know whether it wants to be a serious action film or a lighthearted pantomime like film. The general story is very seriously oriented however some of the characters, especially the character of Roderick played by Stanley Tucci. He has a very flamboyant nature and comedy teeth which seemed to undermine the serious nature of his intentions. Don't get me started on Elmont's (Ewan McGregor) hair. When they were climbing the beanstalk I thought he had his own hair stylist as part of the group. I also think they should have toned done some of the violence to make it more accessible to a younger audience.
Nicholas Hoult certainly makes a great action hero. He is not only very good looking but has a great deal of charm and can act too. Eleanor Tomlinson is excellent as his partner and damsel in distress. As mentioned above Stanley Tucci's character seems a bit out of place in this film. He does do a very good job of playing the evil cad. Ewan McGregor is nicely subdued as the king's loyal guardsman. Ian McShane seems to be playing a much nicer version of Lord Farquaad from 'Shrek'. Especially in the costume department.
A decent but not terribly special fairytale action film. Definitely not as bad as you may expect and much better than many of the similar types of films out there at the moment.
It was not enough that director Danny Boyle had to organize the opening ceremony of the Olympic games last year, he also had to make a film as well.
There is a certain expectation that comes with films made by particular directors. Especially when they tackle such complex storytelling as this. So I had incredibly high expectations for this film. Now do not get me wrong it is an excellent film, but perhaps my expectations were just too high. The plot is fairly complex and there are many twists and turns. As with all films like this I am continually trying to guess where it is going and who is double crossing who. I have heard one critic say that what the film lacks is emotional connection to the characters and I tend to agree with that assessment. It is perhaps why the film was not able to reach the level of greatness that I was expecting. You do not really come to care about the characters and what they are going through. Danny has done an excellent job with the direction and editing of the film. The plot is always shifting reality so that you are not sure what is real or not.
James McAvoy does an excellent job as our hero. His character goes through many different moods in the film and James is very good at conveying all of them. Vincent Cassel plays the same sort of nasty character that he normally plays. However here he is given a bit of a softer side which gives his character a bit more depth. Rosario Dawson once again gives her all for a role and exposes all of herself. She makes more about of her part than just being the love interest.
While it may not reach the high levels of greatness that I was expecting from such a grwat director, this is still a very clever and entertaining thriller.
Australia is very good at making feel good movies. And you cannot get more feel good than a musical comedy.
Most musicals seems to be set in a type of fantasy world which exists in parallel to our own. The fact that people burst into song to express their feelings bears this out. 'Goddess' is very much a modern musical which has a modern storyline and features themes and issues which many people can relate to. The fact that the main characters sing their feelings just makes the message a lot more fun. Admittedly the plot is predictable, but tell me a musical that isn't. You know where it is going at every step but that does not matter when you are having this much fun. The songs which came from a one woman show by Joanna Weinberg are very fun but for me were not terribly memorable. Director Mark Lamprell has done an excellent job of staging the songs too with excellent choreography. They help with the feel good fun factor of the film.
Laura Michelle Kelly comes from a stage musical background so she is the perfect choice to play Elspeth. Laura is wonderful and brings a great deal of warmth and charm to the role. She is also a brilliant singer and dancer. Ronan Keating is another one with a musical background. He does a very decent job but I did not find him as dynamic as Laura. The great Magda Szubanski is brilliant as always. She plays the ruthless corporate bitch really well and provides much of the films funnier moments. It was also nice to see Pia Miranda and Corrine Grant in minor roles.
More evidence that Australia can produce some great films. Not everything we do is all doom and gloom.
How much bad luck can one man have? John McClane can not even go to Russia to visit his son with out getting into trouble.
Everything about this film screams 'no effort' to me. It was like the film makers were doing a rush job on the film and no one was making any effort to make a film that was like the previous 'Die Hard' films. I watched the other 'Die Hard' films before watching this new one and while there were some flaws in the sequels (The first film is near perfect) they were still excellent films with great plots and action sequences. The plot for this film was really flimsy and has no great substance. The other films had interesting twists and turns which made them fun. I found this plot to be really boring and tedious. Even the action scenes I found to be boring as well. All they seemed to be about was trying to find how much stuff they could destroy. I know that is probably the case in previous films but with this film it seemed more obvious that they were not making actions scenes that were integral to the plot.
Bruce Willis does so many of these action films that he can pretty much do them in his sleep. Some have suggested he is sleepwalking in this role. But the problem for me with him doing so many action films is that he seems like John McClane in almost every role he does. This means that when he comes to do a 'Die Hard' film like this it does not feel terribly special or different to many of the other action films that he does. It is particularly bad when this film is nothing special. Jair Courtney does a decent job as Bruce's son/sidekick. He is proving to be a great action hero in the making. The bad guys do not even rate much of a mention which proves how effective they are.
It is a shame when a film studio goes too far with their film franchises. A great deal more effort needed to go into this film to make it worthy or being called 'Die Hard'.
We've had girls fall in love with many supernatural creatures of the past few years. So it was inevitable that they turn their attention to zombies.
Up until now our view of zombies has been as brain dead, lumbering monsters who are only interested in eating your brains. So at the start of this film I had my judgment of them quite clouded. Luckily director Jonathan Levine, with the help of a book by Isaac Marion, managed to change my perceptions. Jonathan and Isaac have set up a great premise where zombies still have feelings and thoughts but no way of expressing them. R seems to be a zombie that is different from the rest and when he eats a guys brains he falls in love with that guys girlfriend. While I had a lot of problems with Stephanie Myer changing the rules regarding vampires for her story, I did not seem to mind Isaac doing it here with zombies. On the surface this is a familiar story of a couple from two different worlds who fall in love. But it is the humour and romance that makes it different to all the others. The humour is very wry but there are a few really funny laugh out loud moments. Being a hopeless romantic I also loved the romantic story. The film is a combination of three of my favourite genres, comedy, romance and horror. So it was a perfect storm of enjoyment for me. Horror fans will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of blood and gore but it is just not that type of story.
Nicholas Hoult is not only a very good looking man but a wonderful actor as well. With most of his dialogue in the film done in voice over he has to express himself through body language which he does really well. He also has great chemistry with his partner in love Teresa Palmer. Teresa is very charming and funny. John Malkovich has a nicely subdued role here as he plays what could be a nasty character in a gentler way.
It is not doubt the romantic in me that make me simply adore this film. One of the best I have seen this year.
Many of you may know this film as 'A Late Quartet'. But here in Australia it is known as 'Performance' so as not to confuse it with 'Quartet'.
Classical music is something I have mixed feelings about. I enjoy some pieces but not all. It is not a form of music that I would like to attend a concert of. I have been to a couple of performances by orchestras lately but they were part of screenings with films. I respect other people's interest in watching a quartet but it is not for me. One other interesting element that this film highlights is when a group breaks up. They are always a great catalyst for examining the characters in the group. This film is no exception. Egos are always a character trait that rears its head in films about music groups. This is very much a character study of a group of characters and how a major change can affect their lives. Each of them reacts in different ways. Writers Yaron Zilberman and Seth Grossman have created great characters that you come to care about over the film, even if they do some stupid things.
I probably do not need to tell you that these actors are all brilliant. Christopher Walken gives a wonderfully subtle performance here compared to his normally over the top roles. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Catherine Keener make a great married couple even if they are having troubles. Many of you may not know of Mark Ivanir but you should see this film to familiarize yourself with his excellent performance.
An excellent character driven dramam that not only has great music but explores an interesting group dynamic.
