But viewer discretion is advised; Natali’s mostly solemn treatment of confronting moral themes makes Splice a film to be admired, not necessarily enjoyed.

Adrien Brody (Predators) and Sarah Polly (eXistenZ) star as Clive and Elsa, two brilliant genetic engineers working on a hybrid life form that has been spliced together using various samples of animal DNA. The two want to take their research to the next level by incorporating human DNA into the mix – the result of which could potentially cure numerous fatal diseases – but the company funding the research, N.E.R.D, intends to shut down the project once they’ve synthesised a marketable protein. Clive and Elsa, however, aren’t content with stopping just yet and continue their research in secret. Their ethical nightmare of an experiment is a remarkable success, resulting in the birth of a tailed, goat-legged human hybrid named Dren.

Due to her extremely short lifespan, Clive and Elsa recklessly decide to raise Dren in secret and learn from her behavioural traits before dissecting her for genetic research. Even on a tight independent production budget, baby Dren interacts seamlessly with the cast and environment by way of some tremendously good CG character animation. As an adult, she is played by French actress Delphine Chanéac in an intense and challenging role that requires her to undergo constant change without being able to verbalise.  She pulls it off wondrously; not only is Chanéac fascinating to watch, her character is also strangely attractive – similar, in a way, to the Na’vi species in Avatar. But unlike James Cameron’s big-budget crowd-pleaser, Splice is certainly not a film for everyone; Natali is not shy of taking his film down some dark and disturbing paths, and even if you’re not overly keen about the destination, you have to admire the nuance he displays in getting there.

Splice falls in the broad genre of horror, but does not resemble the brash, gory and histrionic slashers that have degraded the genre over the years. No, this is very much a throwback to the multilayered, slow-burning horrors of yesteryear – most prominently David Cronenberg’s The Fly — that frightens not because it jumps at you from the shadows, but because it reflects the deepest and darkest depths of the human experience. This is a film about science of people, not monsters; the characters here are smart yet fallible human beings, not botoxed pincushions waiting in line to be slaughtered.

Both Adrien Brody and Sarah Polly are well cast, successfully conveying their characters inner-conflict between morality and science while also dealing with a number of deeper issues that linger in the past. Their characters make plainly foolish decisions on numerous occasions, but it’s a testament to the genuineness of their performances and careful structuring of the drama that we aren’t lost to disbelief.

Regrettably, however, Splice does lose its way in the final act. The film basically ‘snaps’ with fifteen minutes to go, completely giving into all the generic and implausible horror conventions it cleverly managed to sidestep beforehand. It’s a disappointing end to an otherwise well-executed 21^st century take on Frankenstein that, if you’ve been keeping up with the news lately, is hardly the work of fiction it once was.

If you thought the similarly themed Knight and Day was bad, wait till you see this vacuous spy comedy from The Ugly Truth director Robert Luketic. Killers sees Luketic take a desperate swing at genre after genre in a hope he might eventually strike it lucky, but he does so with the dexterity of a blind swordsman suffering from an inner-ear infection.

The film begins in rom-com territory where the recently single Jen (Katherine Heigl) bumps boobs with the glistening pecks of hunky consultant Spencer (Ashton Kutcher) while holidaying in Nice, France. The two apparently hit it off, but what Jen doesn’t know is that Spencer is really a secret CIA agent finishing up an assignment. Lucky for Jen, it turns out he’s been on the hunt for someone as exceedingly tedious as she is to hang up his gun and bunker down with. Fast forward three years and Spencer and Jen are married, living deep in suburbia and leading a seemingly normal, unexciting life.

Finally, after an hour of painfully dull screenwriting that climaxes with a fart joke, the action plot decides to kick in when Spencer’s best friend unexpectedly tries to stab him (don’t you hate it when they do that?). Before long, most of their neighbours are revealed to be killer assassins, each competing against one another to terminate Spencer. So why does everyone want him dead all of a sudden? Who is the mastermind behind this dastardly assassination plot? And who in their right mind could honestly believe that Ashton Kutcher – the dude who could barely find his car ten years ago — is an elite spy?

One might compare this to the infinitely superior True Lies, but Killers feels more like it has been cobbled together using binned outtakes from the mediocre-but-tolerable Mr. and Mrs. Smith. At the very least, that film had its moments thanks to the strong chemistry – on screen and off — between Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Here, Heigl and Kutcher’s romance has about as much crackle as a bowl of soggy Rice Bubbles. It doesn’t help that Luketic is clearly inexperienced at directing action scenes, all of which fall victim to lazy staging and chaotic camerawork. I was more unsettled than entertained by the totally humourless ways Luketic violently slaughters off the assassins, perhaps because moments earlier these people were masquerading as Spencer and Jen’s closest friends. Maybe the film was initially vying for a darker, more solemn Truman Show vibe before it made a last minute jump on the action-comedy bandwagon?

Pfft, who am I kidding. Bad movie just bad.

But McKay doesn’t just portray Welles, he becomes him.  His physical likeness to the great man is uncanny, but more importantly, he nails every single aspect of Welles’ notoriously eccentric personality. The booming spit-filled projections. The unreserved, self-declared genius. The rare moments of compassion and camaraderie. And, of course, his spellbinding presence on stage, screen and radio. It’s all there, all brilliantly depicted.

Events take place in 1937 New York where young acting hopeful Richard Samuels (Efron) chances upon a role in Welles’ modernised Broadway production of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Filled with feisty optimism, Richard quickly learns that the production only has room for one ego; Orson’s. While vying to stay in the director’s good books, Richard and the rest of the cast begin to lose faith in the production after a string of setbacks leaves little time to prepare for opening night. In-between rehearsals, Richard spends his spare time backstage with the seductive Miss Jones (Claire Danes), a starry-eyed production assistant who embodies both the best and worst of showbiz.

Undercooked as their fling is, it’s an amiable aside to the main event – Danes has wonderfully matured as an actress since her own brush with contemporary Shakespeare in Romeo + Juliet – but the ample screen time spent with Richard tends to detract from our time with Orson, easily the film’s main draw. That being said, Robert Kaplow’s novel (to which the film is based) was never supposed to be a biopic; it is first and foremost a love letter to the creative industry, celebrating the people of art, power of art and precarious nature of making art.

In that case, director Richard Linklater  (School of Rock, A Scanner Darkly) comes up trumps. Under his playful direction, a disarmingly youthful sense of optimism and enthusiasm spills off the screen, scene by scene. A tight production budget has not crippled the film’s attention to period detail, while a strong supporting cast playing other prominent 20^th century performers  – notably Ben Chaplin as George Coulouris (Watch on the Rhine, Papillon) and James Tupper as Joseph Cotten (Shadow of A Doubt, The Third Man) – adds that extra touch of Hollywood nostalgia without going overboard.

But I cannot say it enough: McKay is magnificent. Not for a moment did I doubt that this was the man who went on to make Citizen Kane. In future roles, here’s hoping McKay can distance himself from Welles’ image, but not his talent.

The tickets will only be valid at participating cinemas between July 30th – August 1st, so check local session times to make sure it’s playing in your area before entering. Then simply fill out the competition form below!

The Special Relationship follows Tony Blair’s journey from political understudy waiting in the wings of the world arena to accomplished prime minister standing confidently in the spotlight of centre stage. It is a story about relationships, between two powerful men (Tony Blair and Bill Clinton), two powerful couples, and husbands and wives. Starring Michael Sheen and Dennis Quaid. Directed by Richard Loncraine.

www.thespecialrelationshipmovie.com.au

ENTRY FORM
10 winners will be selected at random from the list of entrants. Only South Australian residents may enter.

Terms and Conditions:
1. The competition closes at 11.59pm on Monday July 26 2010.
2. After the closure of the competition, 10 entrants will be selected at random as the prize winners. The winners will be notified by email.
3. Only one entry can be made per-person.
4. Only South Australian residents are eligible to enter.
5. We take no responsibility for the non-delivery of prizes via Australia Post.
6. We take no responsibility for ticket prizes that cannot be claimed due to the film not playing in your area or going out of season. Be sure to check local session times first.
7. We value privacy; your contact information will not be shared.

The Major Prize includes:

- Death Defying Acts DVD
– Piano DVD
– Ladies in Lavender DVD
– In season double pass to see South Solitary

Five runners up will receive a double pass to see South Solitary.

Directed by Shirley Barret (Walk the Talk), South Solitary follows Meredith (Miranda Otto), unmarried and 35, who arrives at a remote lighthouse island in 1927 to assist her uncle Wadsworth (Barry Otto), in his newly appointed position as head lighthouse keeper. Bad weather and misadventure leave Meredith marooned on the desolate island with only the sullen and withdrawn assistant keeper Fleet (Marton Csokas) for companionship.

ENTRY FORM:
Winners will be selected at random. Only one entry per person.

Terms and Conditions:
1. The competition closes at 11.59pm on Saturday July 31st 2010. The names of the winners will be printed on the following day.
2. After the closure of the competition, 1 entrant will be selected at random as the major prize winner and 5 entrants as the runners-up.
3. Only one entry can be made per-person.
4. Only Australian residents are eligible to enter.
5. We take no responsibility for the non-delivery of prizes via Australia Post.
6. We take no responsibility for ticket prizes that cannot be claimed due to the film not playing in your area or going out of season. Be sure to check local show-times first.
7. We value privacy; your contact information will not be shared.

But then cameth British writer/director Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight, Memento), who saweth that mainstream cinema was formless and empty. And he said, “let there be originality”, and there was originality. He called it Inception; a stunning sci-fi thriller that dares to challenge moviegoers like it was 1999. And audiences and critics alike saw that it was good.

Leonardo DiCaprio (Shutter Island, Revolutionary Road) stars as Cobb, a slick con-man who specialises in a revolutionary form of corporate espionage called Extraction: the process of stealing ideas from a person’s subconscious while they’re dreaming.  Apart from being illegal, Extraction is also very dangerous as the more often you enter into a dream, the more likely you are to confuse the dream world for reality. What’s far more dangerous, however, is the very opposite of Extraction; Inception. Instead of stealing ideas, Inception is the process of planting an idea in someone’s mind, a near impossible task given that the brain is likely to reject any idea that it believes is foreign. In order to pull off this risky job, Cobb assembles a team of trusted specialists: his lead researcher Arthur (Joseph Gordon Levitt; 500 Days of Summer), dream architect Ariadne (Ellen Page; Whip It), professional identity forger Eames (Tom Hardy; RocknRolla) and anesthetist Yusuf (Dileep Rao; Drag Me To Hell). Their reward is a hefty pay check, but for Cobb, his motivations are far more personal.

What transpires is a ferociously engaging heist film set within the dark depths of one’s subconscious; a cross, of sorts, between Ocean’s 11 and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. After reinvigorating the Batman franchise with The Dark Knight, Inception marks a return of the Christopher Nolan who bought us the mind-bending Memento, the noir masterpiece about a man hell-bent on revenge while suffering from short term memory loss. In that film, Nolan threw linear storytelling out the window by ordering events in reverse chronology, an ingenious ploy that places the audience in the shoes of the forgetful protagonist as it forces us to reconstruct events via our own memory. With Inception, Nolan places us in the same position as the characters by making us question where the dream ends and reality begins.  As a result, this film is sure to spark more stimulating  discussions amongst your friends than any blockbuster has in years.

The best part?  You don’t need to be a braniac or film-nut to ‘get it’. Well, the basics of it, anyway.

Despite the rich complexity of the story, Inception isn’t frustratingly difficult to follow. Nolan is a remarkably gifted storyteller, going out of his way to formulate a story that is both intelligent, yet accessible to the masses. Indeed, for this to work the film relies heavily on exposition; most of the ideas explored are conveyed in big chunks of dialogue laid out in plain speak. This would be a major drawback if it wasn’t all so damn interesting and important. Despite the long 148 minute runtime, this is a dream you won’t want to end.

Even if you strip away all of the film’s intellect, you’re left with an action/thriller that trumps all of the other big budget blockbusters released this year. In a dream, anything is possible and Inception‘s gravity-defying action reflects this with dazzling results. Impressively, none of the action happens without due reason; it’s all integral to the plot, which makes the repeated use of stylistic techniques not just about showing off big-budget effects, but about crafting a story in the most exciting way possible. If any detractions must be made, it’s that during the climax, the film cuts between so many different car chases, gunfights and dreams within dreams, the build-up of tension gets lost in the mix. To have us truly on the edge of our seats, the action need time to breathe. Unfortunately, not all sequences in Inception are given this opportunity.

This goes to prove that Nolan does, at times, overextend his reach with Inception. Exploring such grand ideas does come at a compromise on an emotional level. While a intriguing love story is explored between Cobb and his wife Mal (an exemplary Marion Cotillard; Public Enemies), it’s not as fully formed as one would hope, hurriedly unfolding in what little down-time the characters have. Aside from DiCaprio’s commanding performance as Cobb, most of the supporting cast members go without a back-story, serving primarily as plot devices. Likable, well-performed plot devices, sure. But plot devices none the less.

Ultimately though, to get caught up in what Inception gets wrong is really an insult to the sheer amount it gets right. Intellectual and original storytelling of this scale and accessibility is so incredibly hard to come by nowadays, it must be celebrated when it does. While I cannot deny that I miss the intimacy of Nolan’s early films such as us Following, Memento and The Prestige, his transition into the blockbuster has been a great success. He is the Radiohead of the commercial film industry; despite the wealth and fame, he has not compromised his ability to make richly fulfilling films that remain true to his art. And if Inception can inspire a new wave of big-budget films that tailor to people’s brains and not solely their pockets, then the Cineplex will be a much better place.

That’s the kind of hyperbolic praise few professional critics will ever bestow on a film, but it’s exactly what movie marketers want to hear, and more importantly, want YOU to hear. No one can deny that in the age of ’140 characters or less’ professional film criticism is losing ground to the bite-sized opinions of casual filmgoers. At this rate, it mightn’t be all that long until a quote by @puppydog2222 carries the same weight as, say, Roger Ebert. When that happens, movie posters might look something like this…

Click on an image to make it larger.

Note: The Twitter accounts and quotes pictured above are fictional (excluding I Am Legend… E! critic Ben Lyons actually said that). Otherwise, any likeness to actual persons is purely coincidental.

The film marks the second failed attempt to adapt the controversial yet acclaimed 1952 novel by American crime author Jim Thompson, proof that some great pieces of literature just don’t belong on the big screen. The story follows Lou Ford (Casey Affleck; Gone Baby Gone), a well-mannered and respected Deputy Sheriff in a small Texas township.  Or so he appears. Lou’s deep-rooted psychopathic tendencies take over while cheating on his loving girlfriend Amy (Kate Hudson; Bride Wars) with a prostitute named Joyce (Jessica Alba, reminding us she can do dramatic acting). What begins as sado-sexual affair turns deadly when Lou ‘snaps’ and commits a twin murder, arranging the bodies so that it appears as though the victims killed each other. He initially has the town fooled, but a hotshot city attorney (Simon Baker; TV’s The Mentalist) holds Lou in suspicion and is determined to find evidence that will bring him to justice.

The setup certainly holds intrigue – I usually lap up dark and confronting crime stories like this — but Winterbottom’s detached direction and Jim Curran’s patchy screenplay leaves the audience out in the cold. First off, it’s imperative in a film about getting away with murder that you actually believe they get away with murder. Obviously, this isn’t easy. Many films fall apart at a narrative level due to glaring plot holes, farfetched conveniences and silly character judgments. The Killer Inside Me has all three. For instance, when someone is gruesomely bashed to death, the perpetrator is sure to have some visible bruising and cuts on his hands — if not broken fingers — that would be an obvious giveaway.  Not according to this film. This might seem like a petty critique, but when the source material takes itself this earnestly, it needs to be convincing if it wants to be compelling.

Casey Affleck’s understated performance attempts to unnerve with subtle intimations of the monster within, yet he doesn’t quite capture that burning inner anger, nor possess enough charisma an antagonist needs to win us over. John Curran’s screenplay is also at fault, revealing frustratingly little about Lou’s thoughts and motivations for murder. Never underestimate the power of the personal pronoun ‘I’; without being placed in the first person like the reader is in Thompson’s novel, we never truly get to know the killer within.

The Killer Inside Me shares the brutality of No Country For Old Men, but lacks the suspense. It depicts a similar decent into madness as American Psycho, but is without the compelling characterisation of its criminal lead. It’s clear Winterbottom (Genova, 9 Songs) set out to make an unnerving and provocative crime drama, one he hoped would linger in the back of the mind after leaving the cinema. It’s provocative all right, but purely because of the lurid depictions of violence. Emotionally, the film doesn’t register. We care little for those onscreen, causing the rather baffling conclusion to arrive as a moment of relief, rather than a moment of contemplation.

If only Jayden Smith’s character Dre in Harald Zwart’s remake of the 1984 classic The Karate Kid learnt Kung-Fu half as fast as Neo. Clocking in at a whopping 140 minutes, this supposed family film is almost an hour too long.  The numerous children in the audience – who, quite honestly, shouldn’t have been there given the film’s ‘M’ rating — were running amuck through the aisles long before Dre even pulled off his first high kick. Neo was dodging bullets and saving humanity by then.

Perhaps you’re wondering why I’m talking about Kung-Fu when this film is, obviously, called The Karate Kid. Well, that would be because there’s no actual karate depicted in The Karate Kid. That would have made too much sense.  Instead, it’s all Kung-Fu, and that’s not the first thing to have changed from the original film. The story now takes place in exotic Beijing rather than a sun-drenched Los Angeles, and the protagonist is now an actual 12 year-old kid rather than a teenager (so at least the title’s half right). While the new setting makes for an eye-catching backdrop, it does little to affect the way the core story unfolds.

Dre (Smith) and his overzealous mother (Taraji P. Henson) move from Detroit to Beijing in a hope of starting afresh, but within minutes of meeting the locals, Dre is brutally bullied by a local boy named Cheng (Zhenwei Wang and his sole angry-faced expression). When Dre discovers Cheng is a star student at a strict Kung-Fu school, he seeks out his own martial arts mentor in a mournful maintenance man named Mr. Han (Jackie Chan). The two establish an unlikely friendship while training for the Junior Kung-Fu Championships where Dre plans to face his fears and stand up to Cheng.

Arriving at the point where Dre begins his training – you know, where the actual plot kicks in – takes the better of an hour. It’s quite an uncomfortable hour, too, considering how violently depicted the bullying scenes are. Perhaps if these kids were a few years older, I’d commend director Harald Zwart for truthfully depicting the horror of school yard bullying. But they’re not teenagers, they’re 11- 12 year olds. At that age, I recall the most heinous acts of bullying involved stealing trading cards and calling each other nasty names. Not breaking each other’s ribs…

Excessive pre-teen violence aside, The Karate Kid is your stock-standard underdog film, making no effort whatsoever to deviate from the same old zero-to-hero formula. If anything, it just indulges in it, prolonging the lead up to the big tournament with more mechanized plotting and syrupy character relations. I’m not talking about the bond between Dre and his mentor Mr. Miyagi Han; their friendship was central to the original’s success and is almost as strong here, aided considerably by Chan’s surprisingly understated performance. No, I’m talking about the cute but superfluous romantic sub-plot between Dre and schoolyard-crush Mei Ying (Han Wen We), which takes up far too much screen time given how little it contributes to the plot.

If you’re still awake by the time the big tournament arrives, you’ll be rewarded with some long overdue thrills. Kung-Fu tends be a more fluid martial art than Karate, making these duels more exciting than they were in the original. That being said, cinematographer Roger Pratt has chosen to use the ‘shaky camera’ style to capture the action, while editor Joel Negron cuts on nearly every impact. It’s not horrible, but it does detract from the natural grace of Kung-Fu, which is better suited to longer and smoother takes.

A production credit to both Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith suggests that The Karate Kid exists primarily to launch the career of their son, Jayden. In that case, the film can be seen as a minor success. Jayden, who was only 11 years old at the time of filming, commands the screen with the same effortless charm of his father and is just, just enough to hold this tediously overlong film together.

Thanks to Madman Entertainment, Cut Print Review are giving you the chance to win a French inspired DVD prize pack and tickets to see the touching new French drama The Hedgehog [Le hérisson], which is in Australian cinemas now.

The major prize includes:

* Flight of the Red Balloon   
* My Favourite Season   
* Coeurs   
* The Grocer’s Son   
* Priceless   
* 2x In-season double passes to see The Hedgehog in cinemas.

Five runners-up will receive a double pass to The Hedgehog.

Here’s the official plot synopsis:

Renée is the concierge of a grand Parisian apartment building, who meets with society?s expectations of what a concierge should be; reliable though totally uncultured. But beneath this façade lies the real Renée: passionate about culture and the arts, and more knowledgeable in many ways than her employers, with their outwardly successful but emotionally void lives.

Meanwhile, several floors up, eleven-year-old Paloma Josse is determined to avoid the pampered and vacuous future laid out for her, and in an effort to show how absurd her life is decides to film the people around her. But unknown to them both, a sudden acquaintance with their elegant and enigmatic new neighbour, Mr Ozu, will change their lives forever.

The Hedgehog is a moving story about love, life and the beauty of unexpected friendships.

Winners

Major Prize:
Val Squire, SA

Runners up:
K. Green, VIC
V. Bacich, WA
K. James, WA
H. Lim, NSW
R. de Norville, VIC

Congratulations! Your prizes will be mailed to you shortly.

Terms and Conditions:
1. The competition closes at 11.59pm on Thursday July 15th 2010. The names of the winners will be printed here on the 16th of July.
2. After the closure of the competition, 1 entrant will be selected at random as the major prize winner and 5 entrants as the runners-up.
3. Only one entry can be made per-person.
4. Only Australian residents are eligible to enter.
5. We take no responsibility for the non-delivery of prizes via Australia Post.
6. We take no responsibility for ticket prizes that cannot be claimed due to the film not playing in your area or going out of season. Be sure to check local show-times first.
7. We value privacy; your contact information will not be shared.

Set against the lively backdrop of Calcutta, the cultural capital of India, the film follows an Australian couple’s attempt to adopt a child in hope that it will mend their troubled marriage. Fiona (Radha Mitchell; Finding Neverland) is an anxious attorney who struggles to put down her work phone, while her husband Ben (Joel Edgerton; Animal Kingdom) is a carefree musician who struggles to put down his guitar.  Their patience is tested when the adoption agency repeatedly delays their appointments, forcing the two to spend more time than expected in the polarizing cultural and spiritual landscape of India.

The film begins on uneven footing, focusing too heavily on exotic culture shock without giving due attention to the heart of the story and its characters. When we first meet Fiona and Ben in the airport, it’s clear their marriage has been without love for a while. As such, the chemistry between Mitchell and Edgerton is deliberately cold, initially making it quite hard to warm up to their personalities. It would have been nice to have seen these two in love at some point during the first act – perhaps via a flashback, or even by beginning the film back in Melbourne. That way, the audience has a gauge of what the two are fighting for with their strained marriage.

If you allow The Waiting City an hour or so to establish itself, things do improve. McCarthy wisely looks beyond the striking veneer of Indian society and begins to connect with the characters on a deeper level. As the adoption date draws closer, we begin to learn more about Fiona and Ben’s turbulent past and their reasons for adopting a foreign child. This is easily the film’s most engaging subtext; McCarthy, having spent a number of years as a volunteer in an Indian Mission, depicts the adoption process with great authenticity. Her screenplay would have benefited from this parental journey being more predominant throughout, as the spiritual journey being concurrently explored loses some integrity to a few heavy-handed transformational scenes.

Both Mitchell and Edgerton deliver carefully refined and convincing performances, drawing attention to their characters concerns of parenthood without calling for melodramatics. In support, notable British/Indian actor Samrat Chakrabarti (Kissing Cousins) skilfully takes on the role of cultural mediator as kind-hearted hotel clerk Krishna, while  Australian stunner Isabel Lucas (Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) has a brief part as Ben’s alluring musical friend Scarlett. Arriving in unlikely circumstances, her nothing of a character exists only to highlight Ben and Fiona’s ruptured relationship and could have been done without.

Living up to its name, The Waiting City rewards patience. The film’s initial unevenness is remedied by a captivating second half full of heart. This is the first Australian film to be set entirely in India and it’s refreshing to see more and more local filmmakers like McCarthy set their stories offshore, other recent examples being Balibo, Disgrace and Beneath Hill 60. It’s a promising trend that will hopefully broaden our industry’s domestic and international appeal.

Well, the obvious answer is because it stars teenage heartthrobs Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner. But I think there’s more to it than that. I think it’s because of the character Bella.

Perhaps it’s a result of Kristen Stewart’s utterly listless performance, but it seems as though Bella has been deliberately written in such a way that she is without any semblance of a personality and/or likable qualities. She’s a blank canvas; a vacant pair of sparkly shoes that screams out to the ladies, “WEAR ME!” All they have to do is slip them on and…viola! They’re suddenly the centre of the universe, with a dreamy vampire suckling on one shoulder and a hunky werewolf gnawing at the other, both of whom are willing to sacrifice ANYTHING to protect and serve their preccciousssss (i.e. you).

I can obviously see the appeal in that, especially for young and impressionable girls. Unfortunately for me, though, I have a penis. And therein lies the problem.

You see, there isn’t a single male character in the film that I envy in the same way women envy Bella. Sure, I’d love to be able to grate bricks on my chest like Jacob could, or maintain blemish-free skin despite a severe vitamin-D deficiency like Edward. But I certainly don’t want to actually be them. That would mean falling head over heels for an irritable and soulless trouble-magnet like Bella.  No thanks; I prefer my women with personality.

So while teenage girls enter into a euphoric trance as their fantasies play out in front of them, pragmatic men and women are left to notice the film’s gaping flaws. Things like Kristen Stewart’s stilted, mumbled performance. The garish, flat dialogue. The mediocre special effects. The repetitive drone of the formless, unimaginative storyline that is essentially a repeat of the previous installment, New Moon.

In fact, the only real difference between the two films is that it is directed David Slade, a interesting choice  given his background in dark adult films such as 30 Days of Night (also about Vampires) and Hard Candy. He brings a grittier edge to Stephenie Meyer’s material than Catherine Hardwicke (Twilight) and Chris Weitz (New Moon) did before him and captures the action with much more dexterity and even some thrills, making him the lesser of the three evils. There are fewer cringe-worthy moments too, perhaps because the actors are maturing in their roles, but more likely because I’m now desensitised to the supreme cheesiness of the series. This is a shame, actually; I always found the best part of Twilight to be the unintentional laughs. Aside from one joke about Jacob’s aversion to shirts, Eclipse is mostly humourless.

Jacob…wearing a SHIRT?!?

The direction may have improved ever so slightly, but Eclipse is just as banal as its predecessors in terms of story, with the constant to-ing and fro-ing of Bella, Edward and Jacob’s love triangle taking up most of the film’s laborious runtime. Sure, there are a few amiable romance scenes and even some back stories for the supporting characters, but all of these are handled extremely superficially and have little magnitude. By the 90 minute mark, you’ll realise the film has largely gone nowhere. In fact, Eclipse ends exactly the same way it began. No new revelations, no great developments and still no SEX.

By the end of the film, I was left feeling as though I deserved a t-shirt that read ‘I survived the Eclipse’. Twilight devotees, however, were beaming from ear to ear as though they’ve just spent the last 124 minutes riding a Unicorn across a rainbow made of pure happiness. It’s “the best yet!” apparently. Perhaps it is. But that’s like saying ‘A’ is the best form of hepatitis.

—

What’s Twilight Eclipse like from a  female fan’s perspective? Find out here.

But dammit, Toy Story 3 is bloody good. One sequence alone has more heart, humour, intellect and hair-raising thrills than most films – live-action or animated – have overall.  This sequence doesn’t occur until late in the film so I won’t reveal the specifics, but just know that it ends with the most emotional moment in cinema I’ve seen since, well, that opening montage in Pixar’s previous feat Up. I admit, it had this bitter cynic on the verge of tears. And I certainly wasn’t alone.

Fittingly for a belated entry into to a franchise now in its teens, Toy Story 3 cleverly explores the terrifying inevitability of growing up and moving on. This is what returning heroes Woody (voiced by Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and their fellow toy box companions struggle to come to terms with when their beloved owner Andy (John Morris), now 17 years old, sets his sights for college. Desperate to relive the good ol’ days where Andy would constantly play with them in colourfully imagined worlds, the toys make their way to Sunnyside day-care centre in a hope that the toddlers there will give them some much needed attention. They get attention all right; the kind where they’re stretched, pulled, chewed and lodged up noses. Playtime at Sunnyside ain’t what it’s cracked up to be, and as hastily as they came in, the toys want out. But that’s easier said than done when the place is locked down like a prison at night, with a tyrannical group of toys patrolling both the halls and walls. If Woody and co. want to escape, they’ll have to do it Steve McQueen style.

At the hands of director Lee Unkrich (Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc.), the ensuing adventure is what you wish every cinema-going experience was like. The screenplay by Michael Arndt and John Lasseter is arguably one of the more ambitious Pixar storylines in terms of the number of focal characters and the shifting direction of the plot, which is perhaps a little risky for a 100 minute children’s film. Still, it all comes together beautifully; no character feels underutilized, every scene reaches its full potential and the well-structured story never ceases to engage. This isn’t a mere rehash of the first two films in fandangle new 3D  — which, by the way, isn’t as complimentary to the experience as it was with Up – it’s a fitting conclusion to the Toy Story trilogy that embodies both the maturation of its characters, its audience and its creators. As such, expect more tender moments than spontaneous witticisms. It’s still A-grade entertainment for all ages, but those who grew up with the characters and can appreciate the mature themes will be the most rewarded.

The returning vocal talent of Tim Allen (Buzz), Tom Hanks (Woody), Joan Cusack (Jessie), Don Rickles (Mr. Potato Head), Estelle Harris (Mrs. Potato Head), Wallace Shawn (Rex), John Ratzenberger (Hamm) and Blake Clark (Slinky) as the core toys remains one of the more memorable ensemble casts because of their distinctive, personable characterizations. New cast members include Jodie Benson and Michael Keaton as the famed Barbie and Ken, the source of a much of the film’s humour (perhaps too much of it), while Ned Beatty lends his deep baritones to Lotso the strawberry scented bear, a brilliantly construed antagonist whose grandfatherly one minute, devilish the next. Such profound personalities are a result of Pixar’s top-tier character animation, the pinnacle of which is without a doubt Buzz Lightyear’s hilarious Spanish alter-ego. Just observe the careful timing and nuance of Spanish Buzz’s movements and you will witness, firsthand, why Pixar are the best in the business.

One of these days, Pixar is going to make a bad film. In keeping with the laws of the known universe, this simply must happen. They might want to get it out of the way soon, too, if the old adage “the higher the climb, the harder the fall” are words to live by.  Besides, we need some kind of proof that the holier than thou animation studio is actually run by fallible human beings and not some army of perfectionist cyborgs. Cause I’m starting to get mighty suspicious…

–

Note: It’s worth mentioning that Day and Night, the Pixar short preceding the film, is a stroke of genius that is worth the price of admission alone. No really, it’s that brilliant it makes me ANGRY someone could possibly be that creative.

Then, out of nowhere, tragedy strikes; the film hits the proverbial iceberg and starts to fall apart. The narrative springs a leak. The humour mill runs out of steam. The action grows weary, the star chemistry goes cold. Within a matter of minutes, Mangold’s film has sunk deep into the abyss of mediocrity.

Now, before I start playing the blame game, allow me to start from the beginning.

The Hitchcockian setup goes something like this: June Havens (Diaz) is a quirky car mechanic who repeatedly bumps heads with the ever charming Roy Miller (Cruise) while on her way through airport security. Of course, there’s more to their encounters than meets the eye; Roy is actually a top secret agent who, according to CIA Director Isabel George (Viola Davis), has recently gone rogue. He has apparently stolen a device codenamed ‘Zephyr’, something that the agency would very much like to have back in their possession. But what exactly is the Zephyr? Why has Roy stolen it? Whose side is Roy on? And what has June got to do with anything?  These questions are what make the first 30 minutes so damn intriguing.

Naturally, Roy and June end up boarding the same flight and continue their flirting, but before they get a chance to join the Mile-High club (did I mention Cruise oozes charisma?), a bunch of gun-wielding, agency-type assailants jump from their seats and try to take out Roy. The resulting mid-air shootout is edgy, funny and clouded in more question-raising mystique. It’s everything the film that follows is not.

I can pinpoint the very moment things take a turn for the worse. It happens when Patrick O’Neill’s screenplay starts to answer all the big questions with disappointing explanations, sucking dry all the mystery and novelty that made for such an engaging setup. Consequently, no new questions arise to help propel the film forward, causing the remaining glut of action scenes to come across as meaningless, unremarkable and just plain dull. To make matters worse, Mangold uses this time-cutting technique that sees Roy drug June– and by extension, the audience – into a deep sleep so that when she awakens a few days later, she’s in a different location, wearing a different outfit and ready to be involved in a different shootout. It makes for an amusing narrative device the first time around, but it’s overused to the point where the entire film becomes one hazy, overlong action scene spread across multiple continents for what appears to be no reason at all. And what’s with the title Knight and Day? It only makes a fraction of sense.

To be fair, not all of the film’s initial appeal is lost in the wreckage. The glue holding this shambolic film together is, without a doubt, Tom Cruise. Put aside any reservations you have toward his personal life and there’s no denying the man can act. In an age where big CGI effects are all that it takes to rule the box office, Cruise has that classic star magnetism capable of carrying a film that is otherwise without legs. Diaz also doesn’t disappoint as June, successfully countering Cruise’s boundless charm with her perpetual state of bewilderment. It’s a shame, however, that the sexual tension and humorous banter that made the first half so entertaining is later restricted to a few instances of rapid wordplay and a couple of seductive smiles. Yet with all the hullabaloo happening around them, that’s about all they have time for.

Sure, you can thank Cruise and Diaz for partly salvaging the second half of Knight and Day, but the fact is the boat still sinks. It’s a truly sad sight to watch all that initial promise go so astray, especially when this is one of the few original big-budget films to come out of the franchise-driven Hollywood movie machine. What’s not so original is that it belongs to increasingly popular action-comedy genre, already inundated with new members such as Cop Out, From Paris With Love, Iron Man 2, Kick-Ass, The Losers and The A-Team. All of these, bar Cop Out, are more accomplished films than Knight and Day, blending the humour and thrills with more consistency and style than James Mangold does here.

But wow, those first thirty minutes sure were something…

- The Twilight Saga: Eclipse official souvenir t-shirt
– The Twilight Saga: Eclipse official souvenir lanyard
– The Twilight Saga: Eclipse official movie poster
- The Twilight Saga: Eclipse original motion picture soundtrack, available in stores now
– An in season admit two invitation to see The Twilight Saga: Eclipse

Sorry this competition has ended. Winner announced below!

In The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, Bella once again finds herself surrounded by danger as Seattle is ravaged by a string of mysterious killings and a malicious vampire continues her quest for revenge. In the midst of it all, she is forced to choose between Edward and Jacob – knowing that her decision has the potential to ignite the struggle between vampire and werewolf. With her graduation quickly approaching, Bella is confronted with the most important decision of her life.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse is directed by David Slade and stars Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Ashley Green, Billy Burke, Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser, Nikki Reed, Kellan Lutz, Jackson Rathbone and Dakota Fanning. Based on the novel “Eclipse” by Stephenie Meyer / Screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg.

This film is classified M for Mature.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse is only at the movies July 1.

Winner:

Melina L., VIC.

Congratulations Melina! Your prizes are on their way.