Singin' In The Rain

The second of Greater Union Miranda's Masters of Hollywood film is this much beloved classic musical.

I have long been a fan of films about film making. The whole film making process is something that fascinates me. I've been on a few film sets and while I know for most people it is really boring I find it interesting. Most of the time it is all just people setting up to film something but I love to see where the camera and lighting is set up and what goes into making each shot. This film is set in 1927 when talking films were starting up and some silent stars were getting nervous about this new technology. Writers Betty Comden and Aldolph Green have come up with an excellent story that really takes advantage of this major change in film making. There is also the excellent look at celebrity and tabloids. Two famous stars being romantically linked is not something new and happens today all the time. But today I can't imagine a film studio making a couple stay together and pretend to have a relationship for the sake of a film. But besides the excellent story there are the brilliant musical numbers. I've always been a fan of fun songs and musical numbers and this film is full of them. Most of them fit nicely into the story but there are a couple that feel tact on. This would be my only minor criticism of the film.

Gene Kelly would have to be one of the most brilliant dancers who ever lived. The way he moves is simply stunning. He is also an excellent actor too. He nicely plays up the satirical nature of his character who is not above using his star status to get what he wants but in a good way. He is joined with two brilliant partners. Debbie Reynolds is delightful as Gene's love interest in the film and is excellent at song and dance. The best thing though is Donald O'Connor. Gene and Donald make a wonderful comedy double act and are really funny. But Donald is a brilliant performer in his own right with his stunning dance sequence for the song 'Make 'Em Laugh'. One of the best dance scenes ever put to film.

The big screen is certainly the place to see grand musicals like this one. The vibrant dance numbers prove the adage that 'they don't make them like they used to'.

Mad Bastards

Australian film making seems to be finally making more films about Aboriginal people. We are now getting at least one major release each year.

Writer/director Brendan Fletcher has travelled through northern Australia and collected stories from various people to make this film. It shows very much in the story and certain scenes as they play out. You can really see a story like this happening. To me I think a more apt title for the film would have been 'Angry Bastards'. This is a group of people will a lot of anger inside them. They are very quick to anger and always seem to want to pick a fight. Of the three main characters: TJ, Nella and Bullet they all seem to get angry in their scenes. Although Bullet's anger is more caged and comes out in subtler ways. The story also does not follow the conventional path either. TJ seems to take a while in getting to his son. He has to go through a lot of emotional baggage before he actually gets to meet his son which doesn't come until later in the film. TJ is very much the angriest person in the film so he has to try and remain calm before the meet.

Dean Daley-Jones was one of the writers on the film and so some of these events come from his personal experiences. He does an excellent job of conveying TJ's anger. He is very much a man with many demons and he can let this out at any time. His fellow cast members are mostly non-professional actors and so they feel very real in their performances. Ngaire Pigram is very good as Nella who must struggle with her feelings for TJ and how they impact her son. Lucas Yeeda is wonderful as Bullet.

Another great film about native Australians. Make sure you get a chance to see this so we can encourage more of these films to be made.

Source Code

Duncan Jones made a big splash a couple of years ago with the brilliant sci-fi thriller 'Moon'. His follow up has a bigger budget and more people.

There is one thing I've never understood about the military. They go to a lot of trouble to develop special programs and technologies to help fight battles. But the one thing they can never seem to factor in is human emotion. They expect their soldiers to be like emotionless robots who can kill at whim or complete a mission without taking into account the people around them. That is the case here. Supposedly Colter Stevens has been screened to make sure he was suitable for the Source Code program, I would have thought that the creators of the program would have factored into their screening process how emotional soldiers can get in difficult situations. It is especially true when you have innocent lives at stake. I think if the situation involved enemy soldiers it would be different but Colter has to try and save civilians in a city. Other than that this is a well made thriller. Writer Ben Ripley has done an excellent job of making us confused like Colter is when he wakes up in the Source Code. We discover what is going on through Colter's eyes. He also does a good job of making each trip to the train interesting so you don't get bored. I found the ending to be a bit cliched but that was ok.

Jake Gyllenhaal is perfect as the hero. He has played soldiers before so there is not much of a stretch here. He is very convincing though as someone who is supposed to be an average guy taking charge. Michelle Monaghan does not have all that much to do except react to Jake. But I always like to see her in anything. Vera Farmiga is excellent as always. Her character is another example though of emotion getting in the way of the mission. Jeffrey Wright plays a nicely ruthless and focused scientist.

I think that I may have over thought this film a bit. You will need your thinking cap to watch it and be willing to go along with a risky premise. Risky in terms of believability.

Snowtown

Between 1992 and 1999 a series of killings happened in the town of Salisbury North in South Australia. Serial killer John Bunting then stored the bodies in barrels in the basement of an abandoned bank in Snowtown. This is that story.

I am not someone who is easily disturbed by what I see in movies. Blood and gore I can usually handle because I know it is not real and so can watch it. There have been some scenes in films which I unexpected found myself upset by and they are in films based on true stories. Director Justin Kurzel has brilliantly created a disturbing atmosphere for this film. There is always an uneasy sense that something bad is happening or going to happen. He does not use much musical score and very little dialogue. But the brilliance of it is that he does it in such an ordinary setting and with people that look like your average people from a small town. Most films about serial killers while being realistic are set in places you don't expect to visit. But this is a place that we have all visited or have maybe lived in. What makes it scary is that it could be happening near you and you'd never know. Plus John Bunting ingratiates himself into the lives of this family in such a natural way. The fact that he runs a pedophile out of town helps and he becomes like a hero and father figure to them. The kids in the film have had to deal with some disturbing things in their lives so that when John reveals his true nature it does not come as much of a shock. There was one scene in the film that I could not watch and left me physically shaking. It left me in a great deal of shock after the film had finished.

Daniel Henshall is brilliant as the serial killer John Bunting. He comes across as such an average guy that you could meet anywhere. He does have that cocky attitude that makes his character a hero to those around him. It would have to be one of the best performances in a film ever. Equally as good is Lucas Pittaway. His character is much like the young man in 'Animal Kingdom', that quiet reserved type who is drawn to an evil mentor. He speaks very little but conveys so much by his silences. The rest of the cast are mostly non-professional actors which helps to add to the sense of dread that director Justin Kurzel is going for. These are ordinary people which makes what John did all the worse because it could happen anywhere.

Not a film for the faint of heart. The not quite resolved ending maybe unsatisfying but it just adds to the already tense atmosphere. Still a brilliant film that should be a warning to us all of what could be happening right next door to us.

Arthur

Russell Brand is following the typical career path of most comedy actors. Playing mostly in support roles at first and now he does a remake for his first leading role.

While I have seen the original 'Arthur' I cannot remember too much about it. I know I should have watched it before seeing this version. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this. The story is very simple and something you would not think that could happen in this day and age. The film has not been all that successful and some have suggested it is because of the Global Financial Crisis. A film about the woes of a ridiculously rich man does not seem to be something the average cinema audience can relate to. I got this impression from the film as well. We are supposed to feel sympathy for this character who is rich and must give up his wealth to be with the woman he loves, oh the poor thing. As witty and charming as he is I don't think he can convince us as a character that we can feel sympathy for him. The fact that he has his nanny still hanging around does not help either. I was able to get over this because I found it to be quite funny. There are many witty lines which I really enjoyed.

Your enjoyment of this film does depend on your love of Russell Brand. The film has clearly been tailored for his style of comedy. I thought at first that he was behaving like Dudley Moore which I am not sure if it was conscious or not. I thought he was really funny and many clever and witty lines. Part of his excellent comedy skill is having another funny performer to work with and Russell gets that with Greta Gerwig. I loved how she was able to be equally clever and witty like Russell. I am a huge fan of Jennifer Garner and would love to see her in a leading role soon. Here she plays a fairly one dimensional bad person. She deserves better. Helen Mirren is brilliant in everything she does. I think it was sensible to make her character female in this remake as it makes more sense. She brings a nice deal of dignity to the film.

If you can get past the fact that Arthur is a whiney rich guy who is forced to become like the rest of us then you should have fun. You also have to like Russell Brand too.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

The Walt Disney company have tried to reboot one of their biggest franchises with a fourth installment. Hoping to get rid of the stigma with the poorly received second and third installments.

I think I need to write my film reviews for this blog a bit closer to the time I see them. I've had some time to think about my feelings for the film and each time I think about it I find more problems with it. My first reaction was that it was a lot of fun but far too long. For some reason I noticed the slower parts of the film a lot more. I'm a big fan of Rob Marshall. I think his musicals 'Chicago' and 'Nine' are brilliant. I got really excited when I heard he was going to direct this film. He has ended up doing a decent job but the non action scenes I found to be a bit lacking in excitement. Rob does handle the action well. They are almost like musical numbers anyway. I don't know what it is about Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio who wrote the convoluted second and third installments have not lost their knack. While this film is a bit simpler they have included many unnecessary elements. The fact the Spanish are searching for the fountain as well I found was a bit too much and does not heavily impact on the main story too much. Their role could easily have been for-filled by the English. Speaking of the English I found Captain Barbbossa unnecessary too. While I liked his character in the previous film and love Geoffrey Rush I would have preferred a different character in that part, someone new. While the love story between the priest and the mermaid was important for the plot I think it was not needed. It seemed like they were trying to set up a new Will and Elizabeth.

Johnny Depp is clearly one of the best actors working today. He seems to be very comfortable playing the role of Captain Jack Sparrow. Maybe a little too much. While he is funny in that reckless attitude he does not bring anything new to the character. Penelope Cruz is excellent. But then she is excellent in everything she does. She does a good job of verbal sparring with Johnny. As mentioned above, while I love Geoffrey I would have preferred a different character in his role. A new ships captain. The big delight though was Ian McShane. Many people would not know him from previous work but he is brilliant here as Captain Blackbeard. By far the best thing in the film.

If the rumours are to be believed Johhny Depp needed a lot of convincing to do this film. And the person who had to talk him into it no longer works for Disney. So if this film is hugely successful then it will be interesting to see if he does another one.

Babies

I've recently had a new addition to my family with my brother and his wife having a baby. In honour of the event I went to see this observational documentary.

This film is much like a nature documentary where we spend the time watching animals in their natural environment. In this case it is babies during their first year of life. There is no narration which is good as we just get to see these babies perform without any commentary. We only get titles telling us where they are from. To some this would seem a boring film but because the makers have obviously spent a whole year with their subjects they can only show the best possible footage. Which makes it quite fascinating. The one thing I found interesting was how similar the behaviour of the babies was. Despite their different cultural backgrounds and countries they come from the babies essentially do much the same things. Parents seem to look after them the same as well. Naturally the film is full of cute moments and some very funny sequences. Especially those involving animals.

See why babies are the same the world over. Possibly some more different styles of child rearing would have helped but still very fascinating.

Water For Elephants

The circus of the depression in 1930 comes to life in this film about a man who runs away with the circus.

I'm not much of a fan of circuses. Seeing animals perform this way does not really interest me all that much. However I still read the book before the film came out. I really enjoy nice romantic stories so thats why I read it. Surprisingly the film is quite faithful to the book as far as the main plot is concerned. The character of August has been changed to also be the owner of the circus when in the book there was a separate character who was the owner. It is a perfect example of the type of change made from he book which is that it has been streamlined. The framing device with the older Jacob telling the story is one area which has been lost. As a script writer I understand these changes had to be made and needed to in order that the film work. Director Frances Lawrence is not known for making romantic dramas but he has done an excellent job here. Like the book he has captured the authentic look and feel of circuses in this time. You can really feel the atmosphere. The film also highlights an area that has plagued circuses all their life, the issue of animal cruelty. I must give you a warning that it gets quite bad at times and can be very distressing. One aspect I did not like and it came from the book too is the ending. I found it to be far too happy for a romantic story. Maybe I've been conditioned to expect some tragedy in a romantic story.

It is good to see Reese Witherspoon do a good film after the very disappointing 'How Do You Know'. I found her performance interesting here. Although she plays a star performer her performance is quite subdued. She does not look to overshadow Robert Pattinson as the film is about his character. The other two lead performances were a bit disappointing. I hope Robert plays in a film that does not involve a love triangle. He is still very brooding and sullen. I think he needs to lighten up as well and do a comedy. Christoph Waltz I think is a brilliant actor and is excellent here but my fear is that he is going to become typecast as a villain. He need to play a good guy soon.

An excellent romantic drama that captures the magic of the circus that I think has been lost over the years.

Burke & Hare

It has been a while since we've seen director John Landis make a film. But he makes a return with this very black comedy.

One of my favourite comedy sub-genres is the black comedy. It is a genre that is hard to tackle as the subject matter can usually involve things that you would not normally laugh at. One popular topic is death which is what this film is about. The story of William Burke and William Hare is one that suits the comedy genre. While I'm not sure how much of the film is true the bumbling nature of what they did is very funny. The film is funny but maybe not as hilarious as it could have been. I'm not sure if maybe some of the darker humour was removed to make the film more appealing to a larger audience. I do think it was not as dark as I'd hoped. I still found it quite amusing though.

Simon Pegg is one of my favourite actors at the moment. He is quite funny here but his humour is more deadpan rather than clown like. His buddy Andy Serkis gets to play the clown a bit more. It is so good to see the real Andy too. Isla Fisher is very funny as an actress trying to put on an all female version of 'Macbeth'. The support cast: Tom Wilkinson, Tim Curry and Jessica Hynes are very good. I also quite liked Bill Bailey's small role too.

While not the greatest black comedy ever it is still quite amusing. Definitely not for the squeamish either.

Your Highness

Comic actor Danny McBride has played many supporting roles to a great deal of acclaim. He has now written himself a leading role.

My favourite period in history is medieval times. I would love to live in this time. As many of you know one of my all time favourite films is 'Monty Python And The Holy Grail'. So a medieval comedy is something I really look forward to. I think Danny and his co-writer Ben Best have got some good ingredients there for a good comedy but they have not been able to put them together. The main problem is the language. Now don't get me wrong I'm not opposed to swearing or crude sexual humour but I think it needs to suit the situation. Here Danny and Ben have used modern language which seems out of place in the context of the film. They have quite cleverly set the film in what seems to be an alternate place to earth (as this world has two moons) but even still it bears a resemblance to our world. For me the use of the 'F' word felt out of place. I maybe wrong but it does not feel like a word they have used in medieval times. I feel Danny and Ben would should have looked at more clever ways of using language to get their point across. I'm not sure if it is because they want it to appeal more to a modern audience or they were just lazy. Other than this the film is fairly good. I think the story is its strongest part.

The other major problem with the film is the casting. While I know Danny wrote the film for himself to star in I think he does not suit the role. Mostly because it needs an English actor to pull it off. They understand the period that is being parodied. James Franco I think understands it a bit better and does a very good job. Natalie Portman I think can do anything so she has no trouble here.

There is a good comedy in here somewhere and it could have been if the writers had of tried a bit harder to work on the language and maybe researched the period better.