In 2011 writer/director Jeff Nichols made an impact with his first film 'Take Shelter'. This is his follow up.
The one thing that Jeff is really good at is writing interesting characters. These are people who have traits which are revealed slowly over the coarse of the film so that you are kept interested. The story that brings these characters together is pretty clichéd and typical but it is how these characters react to that situation that makes it fascinating. For the softy like me there is the romantic aspect which keeps me interested. There are a few twists which keep you interested as well. We are not always sure why Mud is hiding and why he is hiding where he is. But the information is slowly revealed over the coarse of the film. The parallel story of young Ellis who helps out Mud is great as well. The struggles he is going through with his family are very well handled and do not come across as clichéd as these stories can be. The only drawback with the film for me is the length. It felt a bit too long and could have been trimmed by about 20mins.
Something has happened to Matthew McConaughey. He's learnt how to act. His choice of role has a lot to do with it but he just keeps getting better and better. He is fast becoming one of those actors who cannot give a bad performance. I'm sure many would not have said that 10 years ago. I am very surprised to see Reese Witherspoon in a film like this. I usually expect her to be the lead in big studio films and not taking small roles in independent films. She is excellent in the role. The real star of the film is the young Tye Sheridan as Ellis. He is brilliant and just about steals the move from his more experienced co-stars. Sarah Polson and Sam Shepard are also excellent in their small roles.
A great film with a great cast and great characters who keep you interested for the whole film.
It seems horror films go in phases. At the moment zombies are the biggest thing having replaced vampires.
For a book that is written by the son of one of my heroes, you'd think I would have read 'World War Z'. It is also the type of book I'd read just before then film comes out. However once news got out of what the film was going to be I changed my mind. I knew that if I read the book it would ruin my perception of the film because they are so vastly different. It has happened before.
The film though is quite an exciting thrill ride. It wastes no time in setting things up and get right into the action. Then does not let up until it finishes. That makes it thrilling as you watch it but after once you think more about the film then that's when things fall apart. As I said you get straight into the action right away so there is very little room for any characterization. We know very little about our hero Gerry except that he is some disaster expert with a family. But maybe that is what the film makers were going for. Just an entertaining thrill ride that explains how the world would react to a major disaster. The makers have also toned down the zombie aspect of the story. The outbreak could be any kind of disease, not just the fact that people turn into zombies.
I find it very intriguing that Brad Pitt would star in this film. I would not be surprised if he had to do it in order to get the movie made. But, as mentioned above, there is nothing to the character he is playing. I would have expected him to play a character a bit more complex and interesting. It is the type of role that could have been played by any actor and not affected the film in any way. Being Brad Pitt does not bring anything special to the role. The rest of the cast just blend into the background and leave no lasting impression.
As long as you do not think too much about it afterwards then you should get a great deal of fun out of this film as your watching it.
There are very few franchises that make it as far as this one has. But the 'Fast & Furious' series has defied expectations and continued to be successful.
I am not a car person. I have no interest in them except to get me from one place to another. The only difference I can tell between them is shape and colour. But they do provide for some of the best action sequences in films. I know that this series is not terribly clever as far as story or character is concerned but they do have some of the best action sequences in films. Director Justin Lin walks that fine line of making the action exciting and thrilling while not going over the top too much. Some of you will say that they do go over the top at some points but that is what the series is all about. Justin keeps it believable within the context of the series. He has done a few of these films now so he does need to keep trying to top himself as far as excitement level goes, so I must give him credit for being able to sustain that level of heightened excitement. Like the rest of the series the films are all about these action scenes and like the rest of the series they are quite spectacular. It is pretty much the reason you go to see them.
With the cast it is the same situation as the plot and action, you know what you're getting. Vin Diesel is his usual stoic self. He is given a bit more emotion this time with the return of Michelle Rodriguez character but it does not give us anything new. Paul Walker does not get much to do, even though he is now a father in this film. Luke Evans is the stock standard two dimensional bad guy. He does nothing special to make him effective and could have been played by anyone. The rest of the cast fill out their stock standard roles well.
You do not need to know my opinion to know whether you should see this film or not. I found it fun and exciting. You are not going in expecting a complex plot or characters. Just sit back and enjoy the ride.
Last year Joss Whedon gave us the years biggest film with 'The Avengers'. This year he scales down his operation for a smaller film.
I love Shakespeare. I am one of those people who thinks he one of the best writers of all time. I've not seen many of his plays performed live on stage but have seen quite a few movie versions. I always have a great deal of respect for film makers who make one of Shakespeare's plays in modern times. The best so far has been Baz Luhrman's version of 'Romeo + Juliet'. As a Joss Whedon fan I had very high expectations for this film. These expectations were met. My knowledge of 'Much Ado About Nothing' came from the Kenneth Branagh interpretation in 1993. But I have not seen it recently so it was almost like seeing the play fresh. Joss has done an excellent job of transposing the classic verse of Shakespeare to modern times. I know many people will find it jarring as we are so used to seeing people in today's times speaking the way we normally do, so when they speak differently it can be off putting. But Shakespeare's dialogue transcends time. I think there were some elements of the story that needed up dating but otherwise it is an excellent translation. I am also a fan of black and white photography so I loved the look of the film as well. Joss does take a certain seriousness to the material but there are some of his more wackier moments to break it up.
Joss has taken some of the lesser known actors from his films and TV series to cast this film. Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker make a brilliant couple. They both handle the dialogue well and their chemistry makes their rivalry seem superfluous. Clark Gregg has established his credentials from the Marvel movies and so you don't need me to tell you how great he is. Fran Kranz is very sweet and adorable as the badly done by Claudio. His love interest Jillian Morgese is equally as sweet. They make a lovely couple. Nathan Fillion is a comedic genius and he's backed up by the equally as hilarious Tom Lenk. They are a brilliant comedy duo.
I'm not sure that it will be to everyone's tastes but this is still an excellent interpretation of Shakespeare. Further proof of the genius that is Joss Whedon.
All good things must come to an end. For my final film at the 2013 Sydney Film Festival, I am seeing a documentary about the life of one of the world's most popular drag stars.
I was familiar with Divine from when I was growing up. I had heard of his song 'You Think You're A Man' and his film 'Lust In The Dust. It was not until later that I saw him/her in 'Hairspray'. So I knew a little bit about him/her, so this film was a great way to expand my knowledge of this wonderful performer. I apologize for the fact that I'm not too sure how to refer to Divine/Harris Glenn Milstead. Neither do his/her friends. Glenn claimed that Divine was only a character he played but it would seem that the character defined his whole life. That is largely because he sadly passed away just before he was set to redefine himself in other roles. Like many performers who play characters, the character can overshadow the real person and so they have trouble being seen as anything else. Some performers embrace this stereotype while others try to break free with varying degrees of success. Glenn tried to break free but was unable to. This documentary is a very loving tribute to this brilliant actor and performer. Which means that you need to take all it says with a grain of salt. I'm not saying that Glenn did bad things that were glossed over but it is a glowing tribute. I still enjoyed it immensely and I learnt quite a lot about Glenn/Divine that I did not know. It is a truly inspirational story of how despite having many qualities which are not seen as ways to success, Glenn managed to develop a cult following. As mentioned above he was just about to go mainstream when he sadly died. I may get criticized for this but I feel it is further proof that performers who are defined by their size may need to get healthy.
While it was sad to finish the Festival, it was nice to finish with such a great film. I had so much fun at the festival this year. Seeing 20 films in 10 was wonderful. Only 3 of those 20 were any good but that is bound to happen. I cannot wait for next year.
Yes I know I am a perverted sex freak! Yet another film about sex. But this time it is the cast who I came to see. The fact it is about sex addicts did not influence my decision in any way.
Sex addiction is one of those things that has not been properly understood. There have been a few celebrities that have come out to say they have it as an explanation for their extramarital affairs. So I think people just see it as an excuse for famous people to excuse their bad behavior. 'I did not know what I was doing because I am an addict'. While this film is about sex addicts it could be about any type of addiction. I think that possibly because we have seen so many films about drug and alcohol addiction I think co-writer/director Stuart Blumberg has chosen sex because it gives a fresher perspective to the theme of addiction. He has also centered the story on three guys in various stages of their addiction as they come to terms with the people in their lives. There is always the constant fear of lapsing back into the addiction. Adam, Mike and Neil are very well drawn characters who feel like real people. You can see that their addiction has affected not only their lives but the lives of those around them. The film is very good at giving you an insight into sex addiction and how it can possibly ruin lives.
As mentioned above I saw this film for the cast and I was greatly rewarded. Mark Ruffalo seems to be great in everything he does and this film is no exception. He is able to bring out his characters inner struggle really well so that you always know what he is feeling without saying anything. He is matched by Tim Robbins who is equally as good as the more experienced addict. You can see the wealth of experience in hi character. Josh Gad is slowly establishing himself a nice career. He mostly does comedy but proves he can do just as good at drama as well. Gwyneth Paltrow does not have all that much to do but is very sweet and endearing as Mark's character's new girlfriend. We do not see much of Patrick Fugit in films so it was nice to see him here. The biggest surprise in the film, though was Alecia Moore or as you know her better, Pink. She plays a character you would expect her to play but she shows really great acting skills and can be quite funny. Her relationship with Josh's character is very well handled.
One of those films that while the story is fairly familiar it is given a fresh perspective due to a different spin on the subject matter. There is also the great cast to 'marvel' at too. Get it? Marvel! Cause two of the cast were in Marvel films. And one of the producers was as well.
Australia's favourite director brings one of America's most highly respected books to the big screen.
I would like to begin this review by saying that Baz Luhrmann is one of my all time favourite directors. He has made some brilliant films in his career. One of my Top 10 favourite films of all time is 'Romeo + Juliet'. He has a modern approach to film making which I love. I know it annoys many people but I like it. I'm sure that you can all sense a great big 'but' coming.
But... I do not think this style is appropriate for this story. As I said, I love 'Romeo + Juliet', which is another older story which Baz brought a modern approach to. But with 'The Great Gatsby' he has not been able to bring that magic a second time. I think what lures most film makers to this story are the party scenes. It is a chance for them to spend most of the film's budget on wild and crazy scenes. It is this type of thing that Baz excels at and the party scenes are a visual feast but I don't think he handled the rest of the film too well. As you may know I watched the 1974 version of 'The Great Gatsby' before seeing this new one and I much prefer the older one. That managed to take a more reserved approach to the story and did not make it look all slick and flashy. I also did not like the look of the film. While I give credit to Baz for making the film in Australia despite it being set in America, what it means is that he filmed most of it in studios on green screens. That sort of thing may not bother most people but it bothered me. And your probably thinking I'm being picky because there are lots of films these days that use green screen instead of sets. But to me that is usually in films that are creating world which don't exist. This film is set in the real world and so should be using real sets. I also did not like some liberties that Baz and his script writer Craig Pearce took with the story. The framing device was unnecessary and showing the background of Gatsby was not needed either as he is meant to be a mysterious character.
Despite all the razzle dazzle there are some decent performances here. I think it is a testament to Leonardo DiCaprio that regardless of all the flashiness going on around him he manages to stand out. He is the perfect modern actor to play Gatsby. He brings the right amount of elusiveness and arrogance to the part. Toby Maguire pitches Nick Carraway with just the right level of naiveté. His character is merely an observer in the film so he does not become too involved in the action and Toby plays it enough that he does not overshadow the main story or characters but not too little that you don't know he's there. Carey Mulligan did not make a terribly good Daisy. I think he character needed to be more engaging and interesting. Cary plays her too elusive and so you do not understand why Gatsby fell in love with her. By far and away the best performance is by Joel Edgerton who is brilliant as Tom Buchanan. Joel brings the right amount of anger and nastiness to the character that you are scared of him and afraid for both Daisy and Gatsby.
The best thing Baz could have done was get another director to make the film but only direct the party scenes. His over the top style does not suit the material.
You may think I am a sex maniac after seeing the some of the films I've selected at the Sydney Film Festival. But the reason I chose this one was because I'm a fan of the director and leading actor...honestly.
I was surprised that I had not heard of Paul Raymond until now despite being the richest man in England. Perhaps because he was not a famous author or a monarch that I did not know of him. The film is further proof that there is a lot of money to be made in porn. You do need a certain business skill to be able to make it work but there is always the same downsides. The film is interesting and does have an entertaining quality, even if it follows the same plot of every other film that involves people in the porn industry. You must give Paul credit for being able to get as rich as he did despite some of the prudish rules he had to follow. This one is a little bit different in so far as Paul's own daughter got involved in the industry as well. There are a few plot holes and some characters disappear without any acknowledgement. It is also one of the most conventional films that Michael Winterbottom has directed.
The story of Paul Raymond has been a passion project for Steve Coogan for a while, and you can easily see why. He gets to play around with lots of beautiful women. But it also gives him the chance to play a more serious dramatic role. Steve does an excellent job and has a very commanding presence that carries the film well. It is the type of story that lets him be funny while also be serious as well. Anna Friel is excellent as Paul's first wife Jean. Even if she does what all other wives do in this situation. Imogen Poots is delightful as Paul's daughter Debbie. She might not be doing many delightful things but she still comes across as very sweet. There is also an excellent cameo appearance by David Walliams as a priest. What I found most funny was David's 'Little Britain' partner Matt Lucas gets promoted as being in the film as well, but his role is a only a blink and you'll miss it 10 second appearance.
An entertaining look at one of the richest people in Britain. Even if it is the same as many other films about the porn industry.
A couple of years ago director Nicolas Winding Refn and actor Ryan Gosling teamed up to give us the brilliant film 'Drive'. They now follow it up with this decidedly different film.
There are films whose reaction to them is far more interesting than the film itself. That is definitely the case here. 'Only God Forgives' received a very mixed reaction when screened at the Cannes Film Festival earlier this year. It also shockingly won the jury prize at the Sydney Film Festival. It has certainly divided people in their reaction to it. Most articles you read about the film are more about the reaction than the film itself. I must say that I am firmly in the negative in my reaction to it. I don't know if I'm loosing my touch because I did not 'get' the film. I normally pride myself in being able to interpret what a film maker is trying to say with his films and understand some of the deeper meanings but I did not understand any of this film. On the surface it has a pretty standard plot of a family getting revenge for the death of one of its members but Nicolas has told it in such a way that it looks like there is supposed to be something more deep and meaningful there.
Ryan Gosling would have to be one of the best actors working today. But not all his roles can be great. One of the biggest things I had trouble understanding with the film was Ryan's character of Julian. He says and does hardly anything in the film, so you do not get any indication of what his character thinks or feels. He is basically a blank slate. But I did not know what that meant. Vithaya Pansringarm is excellent as the ruthless cop taking revenge on this family. The lack of emotion in his character is easy to understand because he is a ruthless killer and that suits him. There is however one brilliant thing about the film and that is the performance of Kristen Scott Thomas. Normally she plays rather prim and proper ladies but here she plays a really nasty vindictive bitch. Plus being blonde means you are less likely to recognize her. You can really tell she is enjoying the role.
I'm not sure that I can recommend seeing this film except for the fact that I'd love to know what you think of it. You'd need to be fairly open minded and not expect much to happen. It is however worth seeing just for Kristen Scott Thomas's performance.
For the first time a film from Bangladesh is screening at the Sydney Film Festival. And I'm pretty sure it is the first film I've seen from that country as well.
One of the greatest things about cinema is that you get to explore places and cultures you may not normally see in your everyday life. That is very much true of this film. The film has a typical set with the religious leader of a community who bans the people of his village from looking at images. This naturally cause problems for the locals. They are soon able to find loopholes to let them get around this rather strict rule. Writer/director Mostofa Sarwar Farooki has made a wonderful film that looks at some delightful characters as they deal with a subject they feel very strongly about. You have a leader who wants to uphold his religious beliefs but must learn to make compromises. Mostofa has packed so many relevant issues into the film that you are kept interested the whole time. But it is not all serious as the film has a great deal of humour. Especially with a plot involving a young guy who falls in love with a girl who has no interest in him whatsoever. I found the ending to the film quite profound and very well done.
Naturally I was not familiar with anyone in the cast but they are still an excellent group. They do not have the polish of the actors you're used to seeing in films but they still do a wonderful job. The best by far is Sharhir Kazi Huda as the village leader. His character goes through a great emotional and spiritual journey and Sharhir conveys that so well.
A film for those who would like to expand their horizons and see a film about a culture you are not normally exposed to. It also helps that it is very funny and entertaining.
My previous choice for a horror film from SFF was not the best. However, I had high hopes for this one just based on the picture they had in the program.
The concept for this film was excellent. A group of Russian soldiers are sent to look for a scientist who is supposed to be a descendent of Victor Von Frankenstein who has been bringing dead soldiers back to life for the Nazi's. It sounded like a really cool spin on the zombie genre and with the Nazi vide that made it even more interesting. Sadly however director Richard Raaphorst and his writers have not done the concept justice. The major issue is that they have chosen to film the movie in the 'found footage' format that has become very popular with horror films lately. There are two problems with this. The film is set in towards the end of World War II but Richard has filmed the movie in a modern way. Although the movie is seen through the eyes of a soldier with a camera from that time the way the footage comes out, makes it look like it was filmed just recently. They should have either filmed the movie in black and white or at least made the footage look more grainy and old in keeping with the era from which it was set. The other problem I had was that being the 'found footage' format the camera moves are very jerky and shaky. This was annoying because you do not get to see very well the brilliant creatures that the soldiers come across at Frankenstein's lab. From what I could see they were awesome pieces of grotesqueness but you do not get to admire them for very long as the camera keeps moving away from them as the operator is running for his life. I'm sure that they would have spent a lot of money developing these creatures as well and so surely they would want them to be seen more clearly on screen. But do not let these problems deter you from seeing what is otherwise a really great horror film. There are a few clichéd moments but there is also a great deal of blood and gore to keep the hardcore horror fans interested.
The cast are playing roles that fit pretty much all the stereotypes for a group of soldiers on a mission. None of them stand out particularly well. Karel Roden is probably the only familiar face to you from small parts in films. He is excellent as Frankenstein even if he does not have a terribly large part. He does though bring the right level of mad genius to the role.
Despite being made in the wrong the way this is still a very good horror film. Well worth seeing for just the concept alone.
Another great thing about the Sydney Film Festival is the documentaries you get to see. Like this one about Napster.
Illegally downloading material, whether it be music or movies has become the newest crime which people feel no guilt about when they are committing it. Like most of the internet you can download items without much chance of being caught. As someone who loves films I do not download films. Part of the reason is my internet service, but also too I do feel a sense of guilt at depriving film makers I like of royalties. You may say that is contradictory from someone who gets free movie tickets but getting free tickets is not stealing. But also when I see a film at the cinema it is like testing the film out to see if I love it enough to buy later on DVD or Blu-ray. I have no problem with downloading TV series as they are virtually free anyway on other platforms.
The sharing of music is something that has been going on for decades. Ever since music was put onto devises to be played back, people have shared music. You might borrow a record off someone to listen to and even make a copy for yourself. I think the music industry and artists knew that it was going on but was such a small 'crime' that they did not care Then with the dawn of the internet came Napster who created a program that let you share your music digitally and in a very open forum like the internet. From what I can see in this documentary record companies and artists were scared. The interest had just become popular and so it was a very scary thing. People did not know its potential and so was fearful of what it might do.
Alex Winter has created an excellent documentary that explored the early stages of the digital download revolution and specifically the company Napster. Napster become the victim of the fear people had over the internet in it's early days. The way they were treated by the music industry was terrible but understandable. Rather than harness this new idea for good they chose to destroy it. Alex presents many different views on the subject and it seems people have come to accept what they once feared.
The world is going through a major change at the moment with the internet and what it can do to human society. Specifically the way information is shared. Like all major changes, humans become scared. This film explores one such example.
The Sydney Film Festival is not all about arty films. They also have some great horror films on their program.
I need to explain the circumstances of how I came to see this film. I had bought a ticket to see a Dutch film called 'It's All So Quiet'. But when I got to the cinema we were told that there was a technical problem and they could no longer screen the film. I had a look through the program and found 'You're Next' screening that day and thought I would swap my ticket over for it. It looked like it might be a decent horror film.
At the Sydney Film Festival you get a certain type of audience who are mostly film buffs. So they know how to behave when going to the cinema. Someone did not tell that to the audience of this film. The film stars Aussie actress Sharni Vinson who starred in the TV series 'Home & Away'. In front of me in the cinema it looked to be a group of her friends who were very excited to see their friend in a film. However they did not see all that much of the film because they spent the whole movie texting on their phone and posting on Facebook. From what I could see it looked like they were chatting to Sharni, giving her a running commentary of their reaction to the film. Luckily the film was terrible, otherwise I would have said something. There have been many films about people in an isolated area who are being attacked by masked villains. I'm not really much of a fan of the genre as I do not find them very scary. That is very much the case with this film, and not because of the audience. Aside from Erin (Sharni's character) this would have to be one of the dumbest group of people in a film. They behave and react to the situation in the dumbest ways. You just don't care about these people and the fact that they are being attacked. I suppose there is a certain thrill in seeing stupid people being killed but I did not care about that here. Then there is the twist where the intruders are revealed when it just gets even dumber. Even the reason for using the slogan You're Next has no reason for being used.
Considering that she is the only character with a good profile, Sharni Vinson is quite good in the film. She also gets to keep her Aussie accent which was refreshing. The rest of the cast are pretty ordinary as they are saddled with boring clichéd characters.
I'm not sure of the rowdy audience helped or hindered my enjoyment of the film. I don't think they had too much of an effect as the film was terrible anyway.
Great films do not always need a huge cast to be great. You can just have two actors doing an everyday job.
Director David Gordon Green is probably known to you as the director of crude comedies like 'Pineapple Express' and 'Your Highness'. David has taken time out from his crude side to make this little film about two guys on the road. Alvin and Lance are two road workers who are just fixing up a road after a bush fire has swept through the area. Basically putting in posts and painting new lines. This might sound rather boring but it is the characters that are doing this job which make it interesting. These are average guys but they have some interesting character traits which make them fun to be with. The fact they have a family connection, they are brothers-in-law, also helps to make what they do very entertaining. Most of the film is the two guys but there is a small appearance by another worker. The guy they meet is a little strange and I was not sure what to make of him. The film is set in 1988 after a major fire has swept through an area of Texas. I'm not sure why David chose this as the place ot the time to set the film. Perhaps he knew people like this growing up and wanted to honour them in a film.
I think Paul Rudd is one of my favourite actors. What ever film he is in, he is excellent. The film might not be all that great but he always gives an excellent performance. That is very true with this film. His character has many different problems which Paul brings his everyman quality to. His side-kick Emile Hirsch is also very good. Paul's character is very straight laced so Emile's is more chaotic. Emile plays that laziness really well. You definitely get the impression that he does not want to be there.
Despite being very low-key this is still an excellent film. I love films with a small cast and this one is no exception.
Not all the films I see at the festival are English language. After making a big Hollywood blockbuster, French director Michel Gondry returns to his home country to make this romantic comedy/drama.
One of Michel Gondry's biggest strengths as a film maker is his visual style. It has a very surreal look that usually compliments the dream like story of the films he makes. 'Mood Indigo' seems to be set in our world but is full of many surreal qualities.in weird ways like where on one half of the screen it is a bright sunny day and the other it is raining and the characters move from side to side getting both wet and dry. Characters also behave in very cartoon like ways. Michel uses almost all the visual effects available to tell this story and depict the world in which it exists. The story might be pretty standard but it is the way it is told that makes it unique. Some may find the surreal quality very silly but I absolutely loved it. It was this surreal element that made me love it so much. The characters do things that are surreal but feel normal to them. Michel uses old fashion techniques like stop-motion and modern ones like CGI. He blends them so seamlessly that they are a delight to behold. The only problem I have with the film is that it is too long. It gets very slow towards the end and dragged a bit.
The acting is also excellent as well. The whole cast does a great job with all the special effects that they have to react to. Romain Duris has not always been my favourite French actor but he is excellent here. He pitches his performance at just the right level of delightful to make his character really charming while not getting overshadowed by the special effects. On the other hand Audrey Tautou is one of my favourite French actors and she is her usual delightful self here. It is a role similar to 'Amelie' so it is very familiar to her. I was not a big fan of 'The Intouchables' but I still liked Omar Sy. He is even better in this film and just about steals the show.
If you like your films a bit unconventional in the way they are told then you will love this film. It is too long, but there is enough visual delights to keep you glued to the screen.
