Simon (Devon Bostick), a teenager from a suburb of Toronto, has been raised by his uncle, Tommy (Scott Speedman), ever since his parents (Noam Jenkins and Rachelle Blanchard) died in a car accident. Now, Simon seeks to clear up the cloud of mystery surrounding about the identity of his father. In his French class, Sabine (Arsinée Khanjian), his teacher, asks the students to translate a news article about a Jordanian jihadist who placed a bomb in his pregnant Irish girlfriend’s luggage back in 1986 on a flight from London to Tel-Aviv. Moreover, this article also specifies that the attack was foiled by Israeli custom agents.

Obviously, Simon uses his curiosity about his parents’ death to state, in an essay (that he reads in front of his class), that he was the unborn child of the woman who didn’t even know she was carrying a bomb. Afterwards, he takes it to the next level by “revealing” this falsehood on the Internet. This goes without saying that it creates a hell of a reaction from many people in a video forum. However, as he spreads this lie on the web, there are three questions at the centre of the story: 1) Will Simon get over his bereavement; 2) Will the truth about his parents’ death come out; 3) Will the truth about the true identity of his father, who is of Arabic heritage, comes out? If it does, will the truth come from Simon’s uncle who never wanted to talk about Simon’s parents death or from his bigot grandfather (Kenneth Welsh)?

Obviously, some may find the beginning slow, dull and disorganized even though the premise is clearly announced. However, as the film enters its second third, we see in a much more organized way Simon’s quest for the truth about his parents. At the same time, he feels at ease with lying on the Internet about his parents’ identity. Therefore, it’s from the second third that we see how Egoyan has no difficulty to cut back in forth between the present tense, flashbacks (read: real facts about Simon’s parents) and false events. While Simon keeps his fascination about his parents for himself, he doesn’t even hesitate to make up an identity for himself on the Internet and lie. Therefore, the question is: why does Simon lie about his parents’ identity while he gradually discovers the truth about who his father was? From that question, the film also beautifully becomes a theme-driven film in which one has to see what Egoyan thinks about the way technology influences communication. At the same time, Egoyan’s writing becomes a little bit problematic for viewers are never explicitly told why Simon lies about his father’s identity on the Internet. Therefore, one doesn’t get a thorough idea about how Simon lives his bereavement, which unfortunately makes the story partially dissociated from Simon’s psyche. Besides, one might even think more that the script is a little bit problematic when viewers are more interested in Tom’s confession of his guilt for the death of Simon’s parents (which he could have prevented) or Sabine’s curiosity about Simon.

Finally, despite its flaw, Adoration is still a beautiful film because of its characters that are nonetheless full of depth and its symbolism at the end showing how Simon gets over his bereavement (and therefore emancipates himself from the past). Furthermore, the film is well served by the cast’s surgically precise (and modest) performance. Although Egoyan doesn’t score a hat trick with this film, he shows us that he’s one of this country’s greatest directors (and with reason). In fact, unlike some masters of cinema like Steven Spielberg (Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull) or John Woo (think about all of his mediocre Hollywood films except Face/Off), Egoyan never really showed some signs of momentary incompetence.

Verdict:

Without being the best film made by Atom Egoyan, Adoration is still worth seeing. If you have enough patience (the pace is a little bit slow) and like some good plot twists, then this film is probably for you.

Review by Anh Khoi Do of Anh Khoi Do and Movies.

The Boys Are Back (Review)

The Boat That Rocked (Review)

Ice Age 3: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (Review)

Welcome (Review)

How to Lose Friends & Alienate People (Review)

Brilliant performances from Ben Kingsley, Penelope Cruz, Dennis Hopper, Patricia Clarkson and Peter Sarsgaard absorb you into their character’s lives. Long time old buddies on the same playing field – George and David (Hopper and Kingsley) engage you in banter. Consuela (Cruz) creates a power shift over lothario David with her sexual history and sensuality and brings you to tears in her final heartbreaking revelation. Patricia Clarkson as David’s always on the road business woman/mistress, lets in glimpses of the real loneliness in their 20 years of “just sex”. David and Kenny Kepesh (Sarsgaard) as estranged father and son find themselves on common ground (adultery) and inch toward a poignant closure of their broken past.

With a great script by Nicolas Myer based upon a Philip Roth novel The Dying Animal, Elegy is a brilliant and subtly directed film by Spanish director Isabel Coixet. This romantic drama beautifully caresses to the surface themes of growth, love and finding a place in the world for us out of a selfish, self-centred and lonely… one.

- Review by Eddie Crismani

Elegy opens in select Australian cinemas April 9th.

Cinema Releases – April 9, 2009

An Education (Review)

Disgrace (Review)

Broken Embraces (Review)

Competition: Win preview tickets to CAIRO TIME in Adelaide!

Don’t get me wrong, I love my country, but when it comes to testing the acting chops of any thespian, I’d say French cinema is the primary place to go about such measures. No fancy props. No extreme special effects. A lot of close up, careful camera work that relies on the actors knowing how important executing pauses, facial and bodily expressions, and the delivery of their lines are. Of course, beautiful scenery is helpful, and is usually plentiful, whether filming in Paris or in the south of France.

Novelist-turned-director, Philippe Claudel, embraces this cost-efficient tradition in I’ve Loved You So Long in such a way that he damn-near executes a masterpiece.  Foremost, he mines the talent of British actor, Kristin Scott Thomas, so thoroughly that one walks away understanding, beyond the scope of the story, how acting certainly does have its geniuses, and Scott Thomas is among the top. The premise of the film itself is quite simple: We meet Juliette, a sullen, chain-smoking woman, played by Scott Thomas, upon her release from prison, where she has spent the last fifteen years for murder. Her sister, Lea (Elsa Zylberstein), takes her into her home, enthusiastically and unwaveringly in the face of her husband’s initial resistance, to give her a place to re-enter society and renew their relationship, which was cut short when Lea was still a teenager.

Prison has done a number on Scott Thomas’s Juliette, a former doctor, as have the details of the murder, and so Scott Thomas presents us with a woman who is intelligent and sensitive, yet hardened and withdrawn. The balance Scott Thomas pulls off throughout the film is impeccable. Her disinterest in make-up and lack of concern for attire, and other niceties the world might provide, are mere superficial indicators of the struggles Juliette experiences even within the most uneventful situations. That Scott Thomas often allows us to see this tumultuousness solely through her facial expressions and body language is an art to behold. That Scott Thomas manipulates silence as a serious craft warrants the French equivalent of an Oscar and a note that this may be, so far, the best performance of her career.

While Claudel relies heavily on the talents of his cast, he also uses the traditional suspense tact of withholding exactly why Juliette killed as well as brilliantly building on numerous succinct scenes to fill out the progress made between the characters over weeks and months. He also has a keen eye for omitting unnecessary moments that may provide dramatic fodder (i.e. the melee that might follow the husband rushing home when he discovers Juliette has been left alone with the children) or build suspense, but instead expects the viewer to be sophisticated enough to fill in the gaps as he moves on to show us more productive key scenes.

The subtle, uneasy tone of the film propels this story’s development and our investment in it. Even as we are set up to settle in and sympathize with Juliette’s slow efforts to readjust to the world while our heart strings are simultaneously tugged by Lea, who desperately strives to love and help her sister, we are haunted by not knowing why Juliette was capable of the heinous murder she refuses to discuss, and so a question of motive unsettles the viewer until the very end. Juliette is at once a haunted Hamlet we suspect may be a little crazy and ill intentioned, and she is also the pained son who needs, but cannot find, alleviation in what’s left of the world. The only grace that may save her is Lea’s faith in their bond, a faith that surpasses the scope of expectation.

Verdict:

I’ve Loved You So Long deftly handles a range of emotions and characters, anchored by Scott Thomas’ seemingly “absent” Juliette. Despite her quiet resistance, many regularly come to seek Juliette out, including her parole officer, one of Lea’s university colleagues, and Lea’s older daughter, Lys. Though these relations do slowly draw her out, it is the primacy of the sisters’ relationship that makes this film special. One might expect, especially of a Hollywood-driven film, which this certainly is not, that Juliette’s redemption would come in the form of some romantic potential providing her with a clichéd reason to live and love again. But the love that is renewed and eventually finds Juliette is that of her sister’s, a love between siblings that surpasses the self-imposed desolation Juliette has inhabited and turned into a habit for so long. When Juliette utters the final words of the film, “I’m here,” the weight of that love is spoken, as is Juliette herself, and we are all left knowing her potential.

Review by Amy King

Cairo Time (Review)

Competition: Win preview tickets to CAIRO TIME in Adelaide!

Competition: Win an epic SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD prize pack!

Interview: MONSTERS director Gareth Edwards (Audio)

Confessions of a Shopaholic (review)

From the first trailer I saw for Pride and Glory, I knew this was a movie I would catch at the theater. Maybe it was the fact that Jon Voight, Colin Farrell and especially Edward Norton appeared as central characters. But it might have been that my curiousity was piqued by the suggestion that a family member might have to cross the Thin Blue Line against his own brother. The trailers gave this film an epic feel that played out the same way in totality. This film delivered everything I expected making it another great film for 2008.

Pride and Glory takes a name that plays on the pro-American Patriotic sensibilities of middle America. It is a very generic name that will probably keep movie goers away. That is unfortunate. A bit more creativity in naming this film might have done it more justice. Something that played off the family theme might have suggested the major elements of this film. It’s amazing how much injustice a poorly named film can cause. I almost missed this film when looking up the new releases for the weekend by name. Once I clicked on the link, I immediately realized this was one that I wanted to see.

Pride and Glory tells the story of a police family. It is not uncommon for this profession to get handed down from one generation to the next. Jon Voight is a wheel in the Police Department…forty-one years given to the NYPD. His character, Francis Tierney Sr. has two sons who have followed in his footsteps. Franics Tierney Jr. (Noah Emmerich) is a Captain in the 31st Precinct. The other son, Ray Tierney (Edward Norton), has been voluntarily reassigned to the Missing Persons bureau where he has been hiding for two years since an incident involving police brutality which caused him to lie to the Internal Affairs Bureau. Tierney also has a daughter, Megan Egan (Lake Bell) who is married to one of Captain Tierney’s Sergeants, Jimmy Egan (Colin Farrell). The 31st Precinct has gained a reputation for crime down and collars up…but the reputation in the community isn’t as positive. Constant shake-downs and police corruption plague the community and have ired regular citizens as well as the criminal element. Francis Tierney Sr. talks his son ray into reassigning from Missing Persons to the Task Force investigating the homicide of four officers in the 31st Precinct. Guys that Ray once worked with. Ray reluctantly agrees and finds himself exorcising his own demons as he realizes that the homicide is pointing toward corruption within his brothers command. Unsure of the level to which this corruption reaches, Ray confronts his brother Franny, who lies to him. The tension in the family creates a family dynamic combined with the law enforcement concept of having each other’s back. Ray finds himself in a quandry, trying to decide whether to take the easy way out or whether to follow his heart.

The writing in this film was excellent. There were a few scenes that required a bit of leeway in order to allow events to unfold in the manner that the writers wanted. One such scene has Ray clearing a building following shots fired. That just doesn’t seem reasonable. However, the story as a whole delivered a great deal of credibility. The characters were believable and possessed an array of qualities that made them seem human. The human element was carefully crafted into this story which could easily have slipped completely into the police realm. The dialogue was interesting, combining enough police jargon with normal conversation to create a balance. The sub-plots worked together well to lead to an acceptable ending that didn’t make you feel cheated. I remember thinking at one point that there was no way they could create a happy ending to the film. The ending wasn’t necessarily a happy ending, but it tied up loose ends, which I liked. The combination of strong dialogue, interesting plot lines and character development demonstrated strong writing by Joe Carnahan and Gavin O’Connor.

Conclusion:
Pride and Glory is an exceptional film worth viewing at the theater.

Cinema Releases – February 5th 2009

Sunshine Cleaning (Review)

The Tall Man (Review)

Competition: Win tickets to see ANIMAL KINGDOM

Morning Glory (Review)

Noise brings much more to the table than first meets the eye. This little-seen Australian beaut from writer/director Matthew Saville (who has mostly worked on Australian TV until now) packs a punch. God bless you Sundance, for bringing Noise to our attention.

The main character Graham McGahan (Brendan Cowell) has tinnitus, which is a malfunction of the ear causing a constant high-pitch ringing, and dizzy spells. He trys to get time off work (fearing he has cancer) but has no such luck. For a police officer, the holidays are busy times. Not to mention that a string of murders has shaken his little town up. He’s then stationed in a trailer, manned twenty four hours a day, where locals can come and offer any relevant information about the crimes. Focus also centers around the one eye-witness to the murders, Lavina (Maia Thomas). The killer let her escape, but knows her name, and has threatened the police to finish her off.

The cast is made up mostly of relative unknowns. But you wouldn’t be able to guess by the skill of the cast. Despite never having been in a film before, Thomas blows the rest of the cast out of the water with her emotionally powerful performance. You believe her, not matter what she does.

The title, it turns out, has multiple meanings. The protagonist, as mentioned before, has tinnitus, when he hears a gunshot, it sounds to him, like a nuclear explosion. Director Saville worked closely with sound designer Emma Bortignon and composer Bryony Marks to create a soundscape almost more intricate than the plot (while not beating the novelty of it to death). Sounds are constantly swirling around the viewer. It’s accentuated with normal sounds: slurping coffee, smoking cigarettes, clicking jaws, unanswered telephones – the prosaic effects of day-to-day life (making me glad I watched this wearing noise-cancellation headphones). Sometimes it’s not the noise that’s emphasized, but the lack thereof. For the length of the film, Saville attacks every sense he can every way he knows how, and it’s a thrilling, interesting ride.

You’d think with all this focus on the auditory aspects, Seville might have let other important factors slide. But even at the greatest climax of the film, the emphasis never leaves the characters and their interactions. The plot never suffers, and despite the sensational subject matter, Seville doesn’t stoop to exploitation and it is an extremely satisfying experience to watch. Rent this.
Conclusion:

This is a terrific ride. Saville knows what he’s doing. So does his cast. You will not regret experiencing this film!

Closed For Winter (review)

Bad Faith [Ond Tro] (BAFF Review)

MIFF 2011 Diary: Days 1-4

Baghead (Guest Review)

The White Ribbon (Review)

The premise of Baghead is simple. After begrudgingly watching a friend’s slightly successful film at L.A.’s Underground Film Festival, four friends decide to go to a remote cabin in the woods for the weekend to write a film with a role for each of them that will jump start their careers. When they get to the cabin, one of group dreams of a man with a bag over his head terrorizing the group. This, becomes the premise of the script they start writing. Strangely enough however, someone with a bag over his head actually shows up and starts scaring the shit out of the group.

Any resemblance to Bryan Bertino’s The Strangers (Liv Tyler) that came out earlier this year is unfortunate. Baghead is twice the film that is (and don’t be fooled by The Stranger’s trailer, the guy who made the trailer has more talent than Bertino will ever have).

This is the fifth film from writing/directing brothers Jay and Mark Duplass. The Duplass brothers made a name for themselves with the festival and cult hit The Puffy Chair in 2005. Their films are shot in a relatively new style of filmmaking called ‘mumblecore.’ Mumblecore is an American independent film movement that arose in the early 2000s. It is primarily characterized by ultra-low budget production (often employing digital video cameras), focus on personal relationships between twenty-somethings, improvised scripts, and non-professional actors (Wikipedia). Some say the purpose is to make the production look simple, but in fact, it takes much talent (some have pointed out similarities between this style and Picasso’s art, but that seems excessive). I think that it’s actually somewhere in the middle.

While the quality of Baghead certainly feels amateur, it definitely has it’s shining moments. Shot digitally, mostly with hand cams, the directors were able to provide the viewer with a sense of realism that is difficult for the big-budget productions of Hollywood (the style is similar to Romero’s Diary of the Dead, and The Blair Witch Project, both of which are low-budget festival films). At only one hour and twenty four minutes, the film takes its time getting started, and to be honest, the first half is pretty boring. But halfway through, it picks up and sucks you in with such force, you won’t even realize it’s happened. I actually felt a sense of dread build up inside me, which is a rare feat indeed.

It’s not a cinematic masterpiece, but the seamless blend of comedy and thriller genres makes for a pleasant (and scary) ride, so give the Duplass brothers a chance.

Conclusion:

While the style is markedly different from the run-of-the-mill Hollywood film, it’s worth making the effort to check out this quirky, comedy/thriller. The Duplass brothers hide more talent behind those shaky hand-cams than you’d expect. You won’t be disappointed.

[imdb]0923600[/imdb]

Alps (IFFR Review)

Paranormal Activity (Review)

DAYBREAKERS Interview: Writers/Directors Michael and Peter Spierig

Interview: Luke Ford, co-star of ANIMAL KINGDOM

Portable Film Festival 2010: Call for Entries!