Barbara Streisand has been quiet of late as far as films go. Except for the occasional appearance as a Focker, she has not had a leading role.
The relationship a man has with his mother is one that is as old as time. Mothers are usually portrayed as being very smothering and overbearing. It is the natural mothering instinct to protect one's young. That theme has been explored many times in films over the years. That is why you need to do something fairly unique to make an impact. 'The Guilt Trip' does not bring anything new to the overbearing-mother theme. Most of the jokes and situations you can see coming from a mile away. It is however a pleasant enough experience. The characters do come to grow on you as you watch the film. I must admit that I could relate to the film in the sense that I'm sure if I went on a road trip with my mum it would happen much the same way.
A lot of the film's charm does come from the two leads. While it would have been nice to see Barbara Streisand do a less clichéd comedy, it is still nice to see her back on the big screen. I kind of felt sorry for Seth Rogan as I watched this film. He continually has a pained expression on his face as a grimaces every time Barbara says something embarrassing. It happens so often in this film that I was worried he'd stay that way. Otherwise he gives a nice performance as the put-upon son.
You've seen a film like this a million times before. While it is mildly entertaining it does not break much new ground.
As we know Quentin Tarantino is a fan of Blaxploitation films. He also likes to take things to the extreme and does that with his new film.
I am a big fan of Quentin Tarantino. I am a fan of writers who can write such brilliant dialogue. Most of his films are dialogue driven and that is his strength, so that's why I love his films so much. I could sit and watch an entire movie that is only dialogue written by Quentin. Part of his skill is creating interesting characters. All good dialogue comes from great characters and Quentin knows how to write great characters. Django is certainly an interesting character. He looks to be modeled off the 'Man With No Name' character that Clint Eastwood made famous. Quentin knows how to make his leading characters cool and that is one way to describe Django. On the other end of the psectrum you have his partner Dr. Schultz. He is a lot more forthright than Django but has a very kind side that is refreshing in a film like this. My only problem with the film is that it is too long. While I enjoy the way he crafts a story but sometimes he takes too long to tell it. Some scenes and situations stretch out longer than they need be and there were a few moments where I became bored.
One of Quentin Tarantino's greatest strengths is his ability to cast his films so well and get amazing performances out of them. I got really excited when I heard that Will Smith as cast in this film. Then I got disappointed when he had to drop out. But Jamie Foxx is brilliant in this role. Jamie plays him like a very tightly wound spring that is ready to explode. Jamie manages to keep this tension nicely simmering away throughout the film and makes Django the cool man he should be. After playing a villain in 'Inglourious Basterds' Christoph Waltz only seemed to play bad guys. So it was nice of his mate Quentin to write him a good buy role. Christoph is brilliant as always. He has the nice suave, sophisticated manner that suits his character and the language he uses. Despite being a killer he has a softer side. Another disappointment I had with the film was Kerry Washington. Not with Kerry and her performance but with the fact that I thought she should have been used more in the film. In the small role she has Kerry is excellent. Also excellent is frequent Quentin friend: Samuel L. Jackson. Many may not recognize him under the make-up but he is brilliant as the cantankerous house servant. The best thing about this film for me though is, Leonardo DiCaprio. Everyone compliments him on playing such an evil character but for me the best thing is that he is finally playing a character that has a more humorous side. I think Leo is an excellent actor but for a while now I have hoped that he would do a comedy. Calvin Candie is not an outright funny character but he has a more outrageous side. Leo plays him in a flamboyant way which I thought was brilliant.
There needs to be a bit of tightening of the story but this is still an excellent film from one of the best writer/directors working today.
One of the many things we learned at the cinema in 2012 was that the cinema is no longer just for young people. If you make star studded films with older actors then older people will go see them.
I think it might be the fact that the 'baby boomer' generation is reaching retirement age and therefor having more free time, means that more of them are going to the movies. What to do in that retirement is also an issue faced in the films about older people we are seeing at the cinema. It is a scary thing and so many films use humour to lighten the issue. They are usually a very cranky bunch who are always complaining about things. But it is always charming. That is what 'Quartet' is. Very sweet and charming. The plot is not unlike something you would see in any number of teen movies or the TV series 'Glee'. You have a bunch of musicians who are about to put on a show. But you have one person who needs convincing to join the group or it cannot be done. But it is the characters that make the film interesting. These are a charming group of older people who you would not mind spending your time with. As a first time director, Dustin Hoffman has done a very good job. He is not required to do anything technically radical but manages to get excellent performances from his cast and make the film very entertaining.
Dustin has managed to assemble a very top notch cast here. Maggie Smith, when she is not being a Duchess is going to retirement villages. She plays her usual crotchty character here but we all love it so much that you don't mind. Her more mild mannered foil Tom Courtney is utterly delightful. He nicely balances the sweetness with his mild hatred of Maggie Smith's character. It was not until I saw this film that I realized how old Billy Connolly is. He plays a character that does not seem too far off his real self. He is incredibly funny and gets all the films really big laughs. Pauline Collins is by far the best as she plays the ditzy member of the group. She is so sweet and delightful. Michael Gambon is also excellent in his small role.
The themes and issues it brings up will no doubt hit home for some older viewers, but that does not stop it from being an entertaining film. It proves that older people can be just as entertaining as the younger ones.
Please note: this is one of those films that you should know very little about before you see it. Just know that it should be mandatory viewing for anyone who works in the services industries.
I do not think that I have been as disturbed for a long time as I was when watching this film. It is definitely cringe worthy. I work as a manager but cannot believe that something like this could really happen. The film is based on a series of incidents that happened in the USA where a man would call the manager of a fast food restaurant and claim to be a police officer who has evidence that one of the restaurant's staff has stolen money from a customer. That is about as much information as you need to know because it gets quite disturbing from there. Writer/director Craig Zobel has made an incredibly tense film that really puts you on the edge of your seat as you see someone so easily manipulated. I will say that the situation does stretch credibility a bit. The manager, Sandra, is asked to do some pretty strange things but just seems to trust this 'man' on the end of the phone. She does not investigate if he is telling the truth or verify his story. I know there are probably very guidable people out there who would fall for a prank like this but it is still very troubling. Then there is the victim in all this, Becky. How she can let herself be humiliated like this is also very strange in itself.
Craig has cast hid film well with actors who look like ordinary people. Ann Dowd gives a very convincing performance as Sandra. She feels like a real person who is under a huge amount of pressure and gets caught up in a difficult situation. On the other end of the scale we have Dreama Walker as the poor Becky who is fully exposed. Dreama gives a very brave performance and must be commended. Pat Healy is suitably creepy as the perpetrator of this heinous crime.
I would encourage you all to see this film but it will upset many people. Despite the subject matter is it an excellent thriller that really makes for tense viewing.
As part of the Sydney film festival there was a screening of '2001: A Space Odyssey' with musical accompaniment by the Sydney Symphony Orchestra.
There is no doubt that Stanley Kubrick is a brilliant film maker. Most of Kubrick's films have a very artistic quality but he also manages to make them entertaining as well. He can also go through many different genres which is something I really respect in a director. He can make comedy, drama, horror and sci-fi.
There is no denying that this is a very arty and metaphysical film. The plot is not that obvious. It is not until later in the film that you realize what is going on. All we know is that it takes place in various places in human history. That is one of the reasons I like it. It does not give you all the answers right away and does not explain them in an obvious way. You have to think about it and you can interpret it in many different ways. This is a sci-fi film that came out before 'Star Wars' which made the genre more mainstream. The film is very poetic in the imagery and the score. Kubrick is known for his groundbreaking camera moves and this film is no different. In this case 'camera move' might be the wrong way of saying it. I think 'set moves' is a more accurate description. The way the sets seem to move and the camera stay still is amazing and make this film a real work of art. I admit that things move at a very slow pace but that just suits the type of film that it is. This means it may not be everyone's style. It feels very much a film of its time. I cannot imagine it being made today unless it was a small independent film. The music is one of the films major achievments. Such a beautiful selection of classics and they sounded wonderful being played by a live orchestra. I thought, though, that there was more music in the film.
The acting is not one of the major features of a film like this. Kier Dullea probably has the biggest part in the film as one of the astronauts that has to tackle HAL. He is quite good and works well against a voice. Dougles Rain is equally as good as the voice of HAL. His droning monotone really adds menace to the scenes where he goes crazy.
I can highly recommend this if not for the fact that you will understand many parodies that have been made of the film over the years.
Comedy writer, producer and director extraordinaire Judd Apatow makes his most personal film yet as he looks at the problems of getting old. Taking a couple of supporting characters from his film 'Knocked Up' and giving them their own film.
One of the biggest mysteries in film making, for me at least, is how Judd Apatow has become so highly regarded as he has. As a producer he has made a few successful films and a couple as director. I tend to think he has lost his touch a bit though, especially in the writing and directing. I really liked 'The 40 Year-Old Virgin' but hated 'Knocked Up' and 'Funny People'. A general rule is that that comedies should go for roughly 90 minutes maybe 100 minutes max. Usually it is hard to sustain the funny for much longer and Judd cannot. His films would be so much better if he cut about half an hour out of them.
We are currently living in a world where people are living longer. I don't think that 40 years of age is considered such a bad thing. So the general theme of this film seemed to me to be very out of touch. The other problem is with the way it is written. There is an overriding plot of Pete and Debbie going through work crisis as well as their personal crisis in being 40, although I think this is more od Debbie's issue. But Judd has written some scenes that are like sketches which have no bearing on the main story and just feel like they are stuck in. Judd is also famous for letting his actors improvise scenes, which is another problem I have with his films. I'm all for improvisation but not when it looks like they are improvising. Some scenes seemed to drag on for longer than they should have because the actors are on some riff. Something that does not always work.
I think Paul Rudd is an excellent comedic actor and is one of the best things in this film. He is so naturally funny and has such a goofy charm Leslie Mann on the other hand comes across as very irritating in this film. Her character is always complaining about things. And never seems very happy even when her character is supposed to be. Leslie's real life kids Maude and Iris are decent but their scenes seemed to be tacked on as well. Poor Maude gets saddled with that clichéd miserable teenager character. Albert Brooks is the best of the support characters and is quite funny. I wish John Lithgow was given more to do though. I'm also a big fan of Charlyne Yi and her deadpan style. Of the cameos I thought Melissa McCarthy was by far the best. Her outtakes scene in the end credits is the only time I laughed in the whole film.
I had extremely low expectations for this film and they were met on that level. Judd failed to impress me. I may not be the best person to judge a film like this.
In 2010 I had one of those rare moments where I come out of a cinema and feel so euphoric, like I have just taken some mind altering drug. This happened after I saw 'The Hurt Locker'.
I think that films have ruined me for real life. I thought it was strange that it took around 10 years for the USA to find Osama Bin Laden. In movies it always seems so easy that they do some investigating and find the bad guy so quickly. My jaded and cynical side said that it was all politically motivated and they really did know where Osama was but were letting him stay free until the best time then they would grab him.
As you can imagine I had really high expectations for this film. But while Kathryn Bigelow is back in the Middle East for this new film, the story and plot are much different. 'The Hurt Locker' was a very intimate film that focused on one man and a small part of the war in Iraq. 'Zero Dark Thirty' however does focus on one woman but her journey is more epic and spans a greater period and has a higher purpose. We all know how this film ends so what makes it interesting is the journey it takes you on. It begins rather slow but does build as the film progresses and the tension rises as they get closer to finding Osama. I apologize if this sounds racist but at the beginning I found it hard to understand some of the Middle Eastern people's names and I had to really concentrate to understand who they were referring to. Writer Mark Boal does not mess around in getting right into the action. It is not all that obvious they are looking for Osama. You just know they are torturing people to get information. The film does start of rather slowly but the tension does rise as the film the progresses and they get closer to finding Osama. It made me realize that the real world is nothing like the movies and is not a simple matter of asking people where someone is and they tell you. These people have to be coerced in tough ways. Plus you have to be very covert when you do it.
Jessica Chastain is another one of those actresses that is brilliant in every role she does. The fact that she does such a variety of roles makes her one of the best actresses working today. Her character here is really forceful and tough. She does not shy away from the torture scenes as you would expect a woman to do in those situations. But then again, her entire professional career has all been in pursuit of one man so she does become obsessed. Aussie Jason Clarke is excellent as one of Jessica's team. While he is talking with an American accent he has a very Australian attitude in his performance and the way he carries himself. Fellow Aussie Joel Edgerton is excellent as well as is Jennifer Ehle in her small role. There are a few others in small roles like Mark Strong, Mark Duplass and James Gandolfini which I found very effective.
I admit that it is a bit slow and long but this is still an excellent film about an important event in our modern history. There is some speculation as to its accuracy but it is still fascinating viewing.
Alfred Hitchcock is one of the greatest film directors that has ever lived. At the moment he is being remembered not just in one but two films. The other one is a TV movie so this is the only one to get a cinema release.
My regular readers will know that I have had the honour to see some of Alfred Hitchcock's films on the big screen, as they were intended. It has mostly been his more popular and well known films but is still a great opportunity to see his work the way it is intended. I really admire him as a director and he is definitely a skilled film maker. When watching his films you know you are in the hands of a master. Someone who knows how to tell a story and make his audience react in just the right way. Of the films of his that I have seen, 'Psycho' would be my favourite.
From what I know about Alfred Hitchcock he was not just a film maker but a showman as well. Unlike most directors today, Hitchcock put himself front and centre in the promotions of his films. He also hosted a TV series so he knew how to perform. This means he was ripe for a film about his life. He has however led a very long and interesting life so to fully do it justice would mean making a mini-series as opposed to one feature length film. It was more appropriate to do a segment of his life. Hitch went through many obstacles while making 'Psycho'. Even though he was at the height of his powers no one wanted him to make a horror film. Especially one the way he wanted to make it. Professionally his life was struggling but he was also struggling personally as well. The film also focuses on his relationship with his wife Alma. I think film fans are going to be disappointed with the film because it does not go into as much depth about Hitchcock's life as you might want it to. I love films about film making so I found it interesting on that level. But I think to make the film more accessible to a wider audience the makers of this film have added in the relationship element. While that is a nice element to have because Alma seemed to be very influential in advising Hitch on his films and the way they were made, but This film does it in a lighthearted way. I feel that if the film was done with a more serious tone then it would have been much better. I will admit that it can be very funny at times and Hitch can be very witty, but overall I think it would have been better served to make it more serious.
Anthony Hopkins is one of those actors that get absorbed in the characters he plays and there is no exception here. You really feel like he is the real Alfred Hitchcock. I do think the make-up lets him down on a few occasions but he still gives an excellent performance. Helen Mirren is another actress who is awesome in everything. She is excellent here and plays a very nice foil to Anthony. Their witty banter is the film's highlight. The rest of the cast are very good as well but don't have very effective roles. Scarlett Johansson is sweet as Janet Leigh. Toni Collette is also very good.
A good film but perhaps not the greatest. You will now doubt be more forgiving if you are not a film buff. Film buffs will probably be very disappointed as it lacks the detail you would want for a biography of a film maker like this.
I had heard many rave reviews about this film, say that it was not only a brilliant documentary but a brilliant film. I had resisted seeing it because it did not really interest me despite the positive reviews. So bowing to pressure and the fact that it got an Academy Award nomination, I thought I better go see it.
I am very ashamed that it took so long for me to see this film. I had very little knowledge of the film except that it was about a singer. This is possibly the best way to see the film, to know as little as you can. The story of Roriguiez is an amazing one that just keeps getting more and more fascinating as it goes on. The mystery around him and his success is interesting. I admit that his music is not something that I would normally listen to but his songs are quite good. He seems to have a lot of supports but for some reason he has never seen success in the USA. Usually if someone is that good they find some success and while Rodriguez has had it, it was not in his native country. I don't want to say too much about this film as it is better viewed not knowing much about it. While there were a couple of questions I had this was just a minor quibble.
An emotional and fascinating documentary about the life of a successful musician you probably don't know anything about. Make sure you go see it.
Disney/Pixar continue to re-release their older films in 3D. With 'Monster University' being released in June we get to relive this classic.
Aside from the 'Toy Story' trilogy, 'Monsters, Inc.' is my favourite Pixar film. The film was released in 2001 when they were at the height of their powers and really giving Disney a run for their money. The story was brilliantly constructed from a fear that most children have when they are growing up. The writers used this common fear to create a whole new world that exists in all our closets or wardrobes. The way that monsters use a child's scream to power their city is an excellent concept. Then there is the design of the monsters, who look like something a child might draw. The writers have then made these creations come to life and made them incredibly wonderful characters. At the center we have our wonderful duo of Sully and Mike. A friendship that is the core to the films success. These guys would do anything for each other. While they may fight they still support each other in times of crisis. But for me the best thing about this film is Boo. I think she is one of the greatest characters in the history of animation. One of the things that film makers have trouble with whether it be live action or animation is how to make children, especially young ones behave authentically. Most children seem to have an older or more adult way in some of their behavior because their character is written and directed by an adult. However director Pete Doctor and his writers have created a child who behaves and sounds like a real child. It helps that she is incredibly cute too. Her relationship with Sully is also what makes this film so great. It never fails to make me cry when he has to say good bye to her at the end. But the greatest moment is when Sully returns to see her and final moment of the film. I saw this film in the new 3D re-release and it look amazing. The 3D works really well for this film, especially in the scenes where they cross through the doors. The final chase in the door room was amazing too.
One of Pixar greatest strengths has been their voice casting. Choosing the most perfect actor for their characters. Billy Crystal and John Goodman as Mike and Sully are one of the greatest comedy duos in the history of cinema. Their banter and the way they convey the closeness of their friendship is brilliant. While she does not do all that much except act like herself, Mary Gibbs is brilliant as Boo. You really feel like Boo is a real child and not a CGI character. Steve Buscemi makes an excellent bad buy. Then on the other side is Jennifer Tilly makes a delightful love interest for Mike. Veteran James Coburn is excellent as the crusty leader of Monsters, Inc.
Yet another Pixar classic. Lets hope that they can live up to this masterpiece with their prequel due later in the year.
