The story hits a higher gear by the third chapter, with Bella (Kristen Stewart) about to graduate high school and pressuring her beloved Edward (Robert Pattinson) to ‘turn’ her before she becomes another year older. Those aware of the saga will know it’s not as easy as a simple bite, with complications coming from the authority of Bella’s father Charlie (Billy Burke) and best friend Jacob (Taylor Lautner). There’s also vengeful villain Victoria (Bryce Dallas Howard) and new apprentice Riley (Samuel) who see to an unrestful period for the Cullens and Bella. There’s a bit of shift in romance here too to throw an extra spanner in the works, and Bella finds herself torn between the two forms of lives she could lead. It’s a welcome change from the constant gushing of lust for Edward, as they move forward with their relationship amongst various hurdles. Add to that entertaining history about some of the Cullen family and the Quileutes and you have a vampire story with enough edge to keep the story going for two hours.

Twi-hards will not be disappointed – the material is almost identical to the book; screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg rigid in Jacob’s repeatedly emphasised love for Bella (some might say there’s too much). What should please neutral viewers is the toning down of teenage-targeted cheese, and the improved action sequences and (for the most part) special effects. This includes the hotly-debated ‘sparkle’ – Edward seems to react to the sun a bit better these days. But as serious as Eclipse is in its overall story, it still finds time to play up on its phenomenon with quips between Edward and Jacob taking on double meanings. The ideas of love triangles and romantic traditionalism are Hollywood staples, and if the first two films didn’t, this one certainly has a cinematic feel within its subplots and engrossing score. The production budget has been well spent in creating a bleak but consuming world, and knowing more of the characters’ backstories improves understanding. If you were to look at it moralistically as saga author Stephenie Meyer likely would, it’s a chance to revisit what good humans can do in the lives they lead.

Films that preach the understanding of choice are anything but rare. But we see forced choice creep into Eclipse; Howard replaced Rachael LeFevre as Victoria, then director David Slade choosing to minimise her full profile on screen. It’s hardly a coincidence – but Howard does her best to make Victoria her own. Samuels impresses in his breakout role and is certain to be added to teen heartthrob lists worldwide. Pattinson and Lautner have grown well into their roles; their banter’s hardly forced and they appear comfortable, while Stewart continues to predominantly appear vacant and still has a lot to learn about articulation. But overall, Eclipse is a huge improvement on its predecessors. That could be a result of the story’s ‘strength’ in novel form (compared to other plots that is), but for one of cinema’s biggest modern franchises it needs all the help it can get before even the Twi-hards see it as a money-spinning ploy.

Verdict:

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse surprises with (much needed) improvement; the first real blockbuster of the franchise.

—

What’s Twilight Eclipse like from a  male non-fan’s perspective? Find out here.

Joe Carnahan’s follow up to 2006’s Smokin’ Aces changes the awesome foursome from Vietnam to Iraq War veterans – who have to operate covertly on a CIA-run mission to prove to the US military that they were framed for a crime they didn’t commit. It’s action from the get-go as character introductions take little time and background stories aren’t immediately important. That is an invigorating change after the endless ‘origin’ stories audiences are now subjected to, regardless of their strengths or weaknesses. As the story progresses and more characters are woven into the plot, the pace doesn’t change and there’s a strong story with a few neat twists thrown into the mix. The sub-plot between ladies man ‘Faceman’ Peck (real-life ladies man Bradley Cooper) and former flame Charisa Sosa (Jessica Biel) doesn’t interfere with the overall story, and pop culture references are used well for comic relief. The prolonged climactic stoush detracts slightly but recovers quickly to create a general but intriguing ending.

There are plenty of laughs as The A-Team’s kept light. Carnahan uses the four to great effect; particularly newcomer Sharlto Copley (District 9) as Murdock, whose manic nature both surprises and stuns. Cooper, going down the Hugh Grant-inspired ‘charmer’ road, is settling in nicely to big roles, while Liam Neeson as Colonel ‘Hannibal’ Smith presents a friendly-but-badass father figure to Jackson’s inspired ‘BA’ Baracus. There’s a great on-screen team chemistry, and with Patrick Wilson as CIA agent Lynch and Brian Bloom’s villain Pike, the ensemble are engaging – even with a bit of cheese thrown in. Sex and gruesome violence are replaced with near-childish baddies and big explosions to see a return to the action of old, when swearing wasn’t the only sign of frustration. The big explosions at least would no doubt be an influence of the Scott brothers, working as producers on the film with original series writer Stephen J. Cannell. The intrigue of The A-Team comes from genuine (albeit minor) suspense and the appreciation of these males’ special bond after their experiences – much like that other foursome currently on our screens…

Verdict

They say there’s no better; The A-Team succeeds in blasting onto the big screen with big attitude.

Their lavish lifestyles are still very much intact two years after the events of the first Sex and the City film, but with a cost. Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) and John’s (Chris Noth – he’s not Mr. Big anymore) marriage is entering its ‘terrible twos’, with arguments about going out versus becoming homebodies; Charlotte’s (Kristin Davis) expanding brood are literally the terrible two, while Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) and Samantha (Kim Cattrall) busy themselves with work. It’s the chance for an all-expenses-paid trip to Abu Dhabi, the ‘future of the Middle East’, that lets the girls kick – well, carefully take – off their heels and relax from their oh-so-hard lives. The misconception director/writer/producer Michael Patrick King creates of the perks that come with living and working in glamorous New York is enough to make you sick – but insanely jealous all the same. What we’ve seen from these girls throughout the TV series and then on the big screen is an unrealistic ideal, but presented in a way that is ultimately so fairytale – yet believable because we want it to be. Sex and the City 2 is different in showing us that not all of the real-life problems presented are fixable with a simple ‘I forgive you’. The past will always come back to you in one way or another and the issues that women face in their workplace and society can’t be addressed over a simple cup of coffee.

Controversy surrounded scenes shot in Morocco, which replaced Abu Dhabi due to permission restraints, where the ladies are faced with women who don’t have complete freedom and men who resist from breaking with tradition. Sex and the City has never shied from creating debate, and the same applies for this film, where there are run-ins with the ladies amidst the mix of Western and Muslim cultures. A lot has to do with their dress; it’s ludicrous seeing them walk out in $5000 outfits in between the sea of hijabs in a dinghy market. But in a nutshell, that’s what this film really is. Because as much as any fan of the four will tell you, while the web of entanglement that surrounds their lives still holds some appeal, at this point it’s all about the fashion. A bit of product placement too of course, with Rolex a lucky chosen one… but primarily, it falls on the clothes. And most of the outfits are breathtaking; it’s a visual delight seeing them carry off some absolutely crazy designs and combinations.

While times have changed and the four have grown, their wit hasn’t changed a bit. King has done well to maintain the wry comedy Sex and the City is so well known for, considering the over-stretched 146-minute running time. Cattrall as Samantha is so cringe-worthy it’s fantastic, while Parker isn’t as confident with some of her one-liners. However, the cast know their characters so well that any fault seems picky. It’s easy to be just that about the film in general because making it wasn’t integral to their story, but in retrospect Sex and the City has never exactly painted itself to be groundbreaking in its drama. Fans will appreciate the film regardless.

Verdict

A pointless but fun ride to what hopefully concludes the Sex for good.

The 2010 version takes us through the beginner’s tale of how Robin (Russell Crowe) came to be leader of the Hood. There are many different versions of the folklore, but Scott immediately presents us with a slain King Richard, leaving the impetuous Prince John (Oscar Isaac) to take the throne. This character is so hateable it’s ridiculous, but whether it’s out of brilliant acting or the sheer stupidity of the man (which he’s rightfully meant to be) is worth a laugh itself. More importantly, the famous relationship between the outlaw and his fair lady is a key factor in how Robin becomes to be a respected warrior, but as their matchmaking is sprung upon them by surprise and necessity it doesn’t come to develop on screen with the time it deserves. The romance isn’t why you would call this film epic, which is disappointing because it’s such an integral part of the Robin Hood tale. With two Australians in Crowe and Cate Blanchett filling the shoes of such potentially interesting characters, at the 140-minute length their powerhouse talent is hardly utilised in their developing romance. What’s frustrating is that the time that could’ve been well spent in this area is used for rather a lot of talking and not a lot of doing. However, Crowe presents a macho exterior that Scott has trained him well for (in their previous four films together), while Blanchett never struggles as the headstrong Maid Marian.

The Scott-Crowe collaboration (both director-star and co-producers) is worthy of Robin Hood; we certainly get a hero tormented by his dark past and lack of guidance. But the film gains the most brownie points in the battles – it’s fair to call the film epic here because of the amazing effort put into wonderful scenes between the English soldiers and French invaders. The minimal CGI is impressive, and while Crowe might have his cheesy slo-mo moment, the climax of the film is the most interesting, drawing you back in from wherever you may have slipped with great cinematography from John Mathieson. Everyone wants to be involved here (even the now-King John would you believe) and it shows. However, while Mark Strong does well as villain Godfrey (based on love-to-hate character Sir Guy of Gisborne) and the Merry Men of Little John (Kevin Durand), Will Scarlet (Scott Grimes) and Allan A’Dayle (Alan Doyle) provide minimal comic relief; this is a showcase for the Aussies. It’s interesting to think of how different Crowe and Blanchett’s chemistry would’ve been had the original script of Nottingham gotten the go-ahead (centred on a love triangle between the two and the Sheriff). Perhaps that’s because a lot of Robin Hood adaptations have had a black comedy side to them with strange personalities and different plots. That the story can change in almost every adaptation to date is intriguing in itself, and that could be a reason why this version feels flat. Dark, brooding and dramatic has worked in recent years with superheroes far and wide, but with an anti-hero like Robin Hood he does what he does to get a kick out of pissing off the rich guys. And who doesn’t want to do that at some point?

Verdict:

Robin Hood v.2.010: good but not great. But the meatier story always follows the introduction right?

Win tickets to see Robin Hood! Enter our competition now.

Documentaries regarding human life hold a sense of understanding and even belonging as the audience can relate to the unglorified subjects better than in fictional stories. For Armstrong, using young ladies Josie, Kerry and Diana (found at a youth centre function) shows how impressionable adolescents can be. As we see highlights of Armstrong’s first film Smokes and Lollies (1975), the Adelaide trio as best friends act as a source of raw angst and reveal the ideals of the average teenager in the Australian 1970s. Love, Lust and Lies acts as a complete wrap-up of the series, with the first half hour dedicated to a chronological recap; snippets from Fourteen’s Good, Eighteen’s Better (1980), Bingo, Bridesmaids & Braces (1988) and Not Fourteen Again (1996, ladies pictured below with Armstrong) show how life had changed as they went through young adulthood. With the largest gap between films the one preceding Love, Lust and Lies, to see the trio jump from young mothers to middle-aged ladies is intriguing – because of both their current situations and seeing the change in Adelaide suburbia from the 90s to now.

As the film continues, it’s clear that honesty isn’t the best policy within at least one of the ladies’ households as Armstrong delivers one secret exposed after another. It’s hard to grasp just how soap-like the lives of these ladies actually seem, especially towards the film’s end; they may not live in glamorous areas by any means, but these working-class ladies have done enough to earn their own story. As Kerry remains the most, well, stable of the three, we don’t see as much of her because of her relative ‘normality’. Meanwhile, Diana and Josie provide some surprising laughs as we see their roller-coaster relationships with numerous partners and children – to the point where many of the kids become the centrepiece of the story and it’s hard to keep track of who’s who. At the same time, there are a few select moments where Armstrong brings it down to a painfully raw level; it’s sad to see how certain things weigh on their minds as they reflect on regrets and mistakes.

It’s obvious the ladies are no longer the best of friends they were all those years ago, but this appears as a part of life and it’s nice to see the director’s influence bring them together to look back on how the camera has captured and influenced their lives. What makes Armstrong’s delivery of Love, Lust and Lies a fairly strong package is her surprisingly intriguing subjects. For these run-of-the-mill ladies, their personalities don’t change a bit amid the constant bustle (or lack of) in their lives, and as they begin raising their families it’s clear that they each become their own person – but the insecurities they carried as teenagers remain almost identical. Much of this information is piled on towards the end of the film, and this is its weakest point. However, Armstrong makes up for it in changing the shots and stories up so the feel is never the same for too long. Good cinematography by Paul Costello helps to see a film easy to watch, even with a not so glamorous setting.

Verdict

Love, Lust and Lies brings stories that are hard to believe yet somehow not surprising. It’s an interesting paradox, and it shows why we find human lives so fascinating.

To be fair, The Spy Next Door has a promising opening, with the credit sequence’s grainy footage showing Jackie Chan doing all kinds of stunts to a great ‘spy’ score. It also has a fun premise from kid-friendly director Brian Levant; loaded with cheese nonetheless… Chan plays Bob Ho, the geeky pen importer and boyfriend/next-door-neighbour to Gillian (Amber Valetta) who really has a secret identity of a Chinese agent working with American authorities. An eleventh hour call sees Bob in action to catch baddie Poldark (Magnus Scheving) while babysitting Gillian’s three children. The story works fine with a linear plot and doesn’t drag as we discover a bit about the characters. Son Ian’s (Will Shadley) major issue with life is important and kept highlighted in a light and cutesy way, as is with the youngest child Nora (Alina Foley) – her Halloween outfit is a major concern. These are the two most likeable as oldest Farren (Madeline Carroll) becomes petulant and rather annoying.

It’s the over-the-top feel of the film that lets everything down, especially from the guy who brought us great cheesy kids flicks like The Flinstones and Jingle All The Way. Levant lets the acting go too cringe worthy on the side of the baddies particularly, with Iceland’s favourite man Scheving and Katherine Boecher as Poldark’s hitwoman Creel largely overdoing the Russian accents. While acceptable in some films for sarcastic effect, it just doesn’t work here. You can’t take Valetta as Gillian seriously when her and Chan are together, while the main man hams it up to ill effect. His persona as spy extraordinaire is the better side of him, with better interaction between Chan and young Shadley. After his work in TV’s Dirty Sexy Money, Shadley as Ian is the most interesting because his character’s given the most to work with. Not to mention that he’s also got a decent charm for such a young kid. Mister Cyrus as Bob’s ally Colton is probably the most normal of the lot, and while the role’s not a stretch for him he holds his ground.

Verdict:

The Spy Next Door isn’t great holiday fare for the kiddies, proving live action films need to step up their game to hold their own against the slew of animated films vying for the youth’s attention.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/2-stars/the-spy-next-door-review/feed/ 0 http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-stars/date-night-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-stars/date-night-review/#comments Wed, 07 Apr 2010 13:17:04 +0000 Katina Vangopoulos http://cutprintreview.com/?p=10183 Marriage for many is a test that often ends up a bumpy ride. Rekindling the weakening spark usually requires significant effort, and many are lazy in their attempt; for fear of change – to routine, or as people. In Date Night it seems two of Hollywood’s funniest people aren’t exempt. If Steve Carell and Tina Fey are reliant on the titular concept to keep the sunshine and lollipops in their (fictional) relationship, then what hope have the rest of us got? The film suggests not much – their bumpy ride is extreme and brings only the slightest source of comfort.

When Phil (Carell) and Claire (Fey) Foster take an immoral opportunity to eat in an exclusive New York restaurant, their night is turned upside down after they’re mistaken to be a couple involved in blackmailing high profile identities. A simple premise leads into a not so simple plot, as criminals are not who they seem, the Fosters throw away everything they’ve ever known and Ray Liotta – well no, there’s nothing different there, he’s the same as always. Date Night manages to plays a game with us as the Fosters stumble through their own maze; multiple rounds of ‘Spot the Celebrity’ often take some of the focus away from the two stars. As the story twists and turns, new characters are thrown into the equation. While the short-term impact most of them have is actually pretty effective (Mark Wahlberg particularly causes a stir), Mark Ruffalo as the Foster’s newly separated friend is wasted.

The problem with Josh Klausner’s script is that it doesn’t know where it’s going; it stumbles along as you’re forced to sit through quite a bit of umming and aaahing and a car chase that lasts five minutes too long. The writer of Shrek the Third and upcoming Shrek 4 has made Date Night fun, but nonetheless stale – the story doesn’t deviate from a generic storyline, merely the plot (which gets pretty o-t-t crazy). Director Shawn Levy (Night at the Museum 1 and 2) hasn’t made it clear whether it has any intention of being family friendly; if the lack of adult innuendo targets a wider audience.

They say an actor is only as good as his material: for Carell and Fey, they often make it better than it should be. Here, they are forced to do so – and their performances still command the audience to pay attention. Their strong presence is helped by the numerous supports, but there are moments of true comic genius. It’s a shame that Fey particularly didn’t have any creative impact in the making of this film. If she had, it may have just lifted Date Night into the skies of unforgettable comedies. It’s a delight to watch her in whatever work she does as (until now) one of the most underrated comedians in the business. She works well with Carell, who also delights. With these two at the helm the expectation may have been too much for the overall outcome; what you get is a film that promises a lot but only delivers in part. The soundtrack pushes things along with original music by Christophe Beck, but the cheap laughs override the true belly aches to only make it a good enough (but not totally fulfilling) experience. Watch for some redemption as the credits roll…

Verdict:

Date Night is good for what it is, but expectations should be reasonable. A viewing of 30 Rock (Fey’s superior work) should follow.

CPR: What inspired you to make a film about Chanel?

Jan: Actually it was simple; I was sent the script. I received it and I was very curious because I didn’t know that Igor Stravinsky and Coco Chanel had an affair. I read the script and it was a typical movie, but an anti-romantic love story between two big icons which are talented and have strong personalities. So I loved the idea of the 1920s, the time Stravinsky wrote The Rite of Spring, also the relation between two artists. It wasn’t really for the desire of making a film about Chanel, but it was about eight weeks of her life… and both characters and the fact they are together gives me the desire to find out more.

CPR: It’s only based on eight weeks?

Jan: Well, we don’t know if there was a little more or less time, we don’t have too much detail on the affair, but we decided to set it up for approximately eight weeks. It’s not really a film for the audience to know about her whole life, it’s just for this time. One day in 1913 and one day in 1970 is all you see otherwise.

CPR: Did you know much on either Chanel or Stravinsky before filming?

Jan: Of course I knew of them, but I think I knew of the composer more than Chanel in detail. I was a big fan of The Rite of Spring, fascinated by this piece of music. When I started the film I researched on the characters and there’s plenty of information for that.

CPR: Your film came out just after Anne Fontaine’s Coco Avant Chanel. Did that bother you, or did you see the films as complimenting one another?

Jan: There are two things. First, of course it’s a problem because there’s a rule in cinema that when there is a film on a subject people will go to see the film on the subject, and when a second comes a few months later they don’t go to see the same film or story by another director. Releasing ours second, we lose a lot of the audience because they’ve gone to see the first one. Now, having said that they should not think they’ve seen this film because it’s actually not the same. The first film stops when our film starts and it’s very different. You can see both, that’s the main thing. You could even call my film a sequel. Now, I think in a way both of us, (director) Anne Fontaine and me, suffered from that. She rushed and won the race to be first, but she suffered, and we went to Cannes while she went to the cinemas. The thing that’s interesting is that after all the difficulties that we had because we lost box office and it was difficult for the producer, we can still see the story with the competition as something good.

There was also the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) in September in 2008. Because we had to rush into production (because there was the competition of the other film), when the GFC happened, we were on the shoot. So you can’t stop a film you’ve started. If we had no competition, we would have had more time and shot the film months later. Then it would not have been done. Our film is a fragile film compared to the other. We don’t have a big star like Audrey Tautou, we don’t have the same budget and a big studio like Fox behind us, and we’re making more of an ‘arty’ film if I can say that, for a more limited audience. The GFC would’ve killed it and I wouldn’t be speaking to you if the race didn’t push us to shoot, I’m sure of that.

CPR: Closing night at Cannes though… that would’ve been pretty amazing!

Jan: It was (nods, almost speechless)… It was very stressful and intense. Rushing to finish the film, I’d only completed it a few days before. You go from being alone in a screening room checking the last detail, to getting into a plane for Cannes and the next time you see the film is in the middle of two thousand people of the profession. Normally you have time to prepare… it was very intense but good.

CPR: Do you think Chanel strived to be so perfect in her working life because she couldn’t get love right? How did you see it?

Jan: I think that with personality, a certain direction will lead you to be positive and successful, but on another territory less so, and I think that the interesting part of Chanel and why I love her character is that she is a woman of today – running her own business, sponsoring art, wanting to be absolutely free from anyone, essentially from men. She’s a feminine feminist. Imagine this woman in the 1920s and the male mentality. They would be deadly scared – fascinated and scared. So I think it was difficult for her because of that, but also because she was very hard on herself. That’s what I like about her. But she was hard on everybody, and generous to some of course (the people she worked with). She may seem unlikable here, but when she applies it on herself you see the truth. When Igor Stravinsky doesn’t present the high of love that she imagined, then he’s out. It (the film) is not an example of how to perfect love, but knowing when to close the door – or open it. That’s shown in the character of Stravinsky in one particular scene (which we won’t reveal here). It’s the anti-manual for successful love!

CPR: What did you learn about Chanel that struck you the most?

Jan: The artistic quality of what she’s done (clothes, perfume). Her creation was a talent, but her generosity was a vision of society, of a woman’s place. Her vision was super smart. She created marketing – we don’t know that for sure, but doing what she did, saying ‘I am what I am’ and having a clear conception regarding her business, she had a clear and modern vision. Stravinsky on the other hand was interesting too. The Rite of Spring was seen as too abstract for audiences at the time. Today it’s too aggressive, too weird for audiences! But he’s seen as important throughout the 20th century because his work’s been copied or used as inspiration. Hitchcock used a similar score in many films; George Lucas had a very similar piece as a theme in Star Wars. We don’t know how much he influenced, but he was there. He was just into the music – and the opposite of Chanel in a way. There wasn’t a vision with him, just the music.

CPR: There’s a scene post-credits that brings a subtle change in perspective. Are you always trying to make audiences think?

Jan: I like to leave a lot of mystery. In the film, there are many areas where people have a different interpretation of the one scene. I think that they should have their own understanding, and I shouldn’t make it completely clear. There is no other way. I think it’s interesting to leave a lot of room to move around. Interpretation is a realm that should be left open; for me, Anna (Mouglalis, who plays Chanel) and the audience.

CPR: What was it like working with Anna and Mads Mikkelsen?

Jan: Oh it was great. Mads is an actor I loved working with, one of the best working relationships I’ve had on set with an actor. He’s a brilliant worker. He had to learn Russian, French, piano… all in two months. He has a strong personality. Anna too, she’s a hard worker and always has a strong point of view. A bit like Coco Chanel. So the result was great. She’ll come to direct one day; she had strong ideas on how scenes could go, and it was a very creative process.

CPR: What got you into the creative process of filmmaking?

Jan: I love storytelling, but before film I wanted to be a comic book artist. At art school I was eventually pushed to make films, and I discovered it was a very powerful way to tell stories… It’s difficult to become a filmmaker though, into features. I did a lot of short films and commercials – fifteen years ago I was here for a commercial (his last visit to Australia).

I’ve done a comic book adaptation (Blueberry, 2004)… I don’t think I would do it again. I love comic books, but the problem is people want to see the comic book live. I prefer to go with a novel where you create the vision. Blueberry was a creation based on the comic and I went far away from the agreement with the author. And people were disappointed, those who knew the comic book, because it was so different. Unless there’s a comic book done in such a way that the adaptation could be interesting I’m not interested now.

CPR: You practice Shamanism – how does that influence you in making a film?

Jan: The 10 years (in being active) has taught me to release a lot of fears. Sometimes you have to spend time exploring fears so when someone proposes a film that’s completely different to what you’ve explored, like Chanel & Stravinsky, you have none. That opens more possible experiences for you in cinema; it opens you up in life and in art. You can give back your experience in film too – the opening credits of Chanel & Stravinsky is dedicated to that. I also used similar ideas in Blueberry.

CPR: Is there anything else you’d like to add?

Jan: Stay until the end of the credits. And it’s a film to be perceived. Let’s open up the realms of sound and story!

Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky opens in Australia on April 15.

The world is turned upside down when the young airport security guard meets the girl of his (and apparently everyone else’s) dreams. We’re told by Kirk’s best friend Stainer (T.J. Miller) that something has gone wrong with the universe – ‘Hard 10’s can’t go any lower than eight, it’s just not natural!’ – and no-one believes that their relationship is for real. But at the centre of it all are two people that don’t want to get hurt and find solace with each other. While that paints a pretty sugary picture, She’s Out Of My League comes to represent the emergence of the crude comedy without an overload of the crude. Sure, there’s enough of it in there to make an impact (a bathroom scene with Kirk and other BFF Devon (Nate Torrence) alludes to plenty without the nasty image), but the story relies on the strength of the characters and effectiveness of the comedy to keep it going. And for the most part it works.

There are a lot of industry connections within the film; Baruchel and Miller are co-voicers in How To Train Your Dragon, Miller and Mike Vogel (playing the fourth of the gang Jack) co-starred in Cloverfield, and writer Sean Anders is familiar with the genre, having also scripted and directed that other downplayed ‘crudy’ Sex Drive. She’s Out Of My League is much in the same vein as that film, where most of the key actors share the spotlight in their biggest film yet. And they do a good job of it. Director Jim Field Smith gets the boys at their best in the group sequences. Miller as Stainer bitches and moans about Kirk’s bizarre on-off relationship with Marnie (Lindsay Sloane), while Nate Torrence as Devon – the jolly married one – relates much of life to those of Disney characters. They ‘rate’ themselves and accept where they stand, and really set themselves up with a bit of bromance in supporting Kirk along his quest to keep the girl.

As many comedies or ‘crudies’ are nowadays, there’s not much in terms of shocking storylines or interesting plot twists. However, Field Smith has fun with the film, not taking itself seriously and letting the story run its course. While the ending might be dramatically typical, the ride before is entertaining and amusing. Baruchel is so awkward as Kirk; his skinny frame partly responsible, while Eve presents Molly as a strong, beautiful woman. Not a dumb blonde by any means. She’s Out Of My League does have its less comic moments (and a moral or two to boot), but the eccentric nature of Kirk’s family and friends make the film comical. Kirk’s home situation is bizarre yet believable; we see so much dysfunctionality around that really, anything’s possible now. The idea is to let go – and here, that option’s a no-brainer.

Verdict:

She’s Out Of My League works because the concept of not being good enough crosses everyone’s mind. You will realise you’re giving yourself a rating at some point.

[Rating: 3.5/5]

We haven’t seen Catherine Zeta-Jones around for the past couple of years, but she returns to the screen as 40-year-old Sandy, who after leaving her husband takes her kids away from the safety of New York suburbia and into the big city. She hires Aram (Justin Bartha) as a nanny while she pursues a career and their friendship develops into something more very quickly. This is much to everyone’s surprise, not least because of the obvious age difference. What immediately hits with The Rebound though is the sassiness of Sandy’s kids. Sadie (Eliza Callahan) and Frank Jr. (Andrew and Jake Cherry) are completely aware of what’s going on between the adults and aren’t afraid to ask questions or propose suggestions. It’s Sandy and Aram that are awkward about it, and that translates onto the screen in a pretty straightforward manner (although not always effective). As the friendship becomes less platonic it’s not just Sandy’s kids the couple about, but public and family reaction.

There are some truly awkward moments as Sandy finds her feet in the Big Apple, the best courtesy of a horrible date (with a great cameo by former Smallville star John Schneider). Friends of both Sandy and Aram give them respective stick, but all of the nasty jokes and sexual innuendo don’t make the story any richer and it fails to cross the boundaries from drama to comedy. It doesn’t know what it is; the comedy isn’t constantly around but it’s hardly a tearjerker. Perhaps it’s because the story itself is a cutesy but basic one, where boy and girl meet, fall in love, deal with issues and ends with… ok, we won’t give that away. It’s nothing we haven’t seen before, making it seem slightly tedious as you wait for the pending problem to rise to the surface.

Triple billed (director/writer/producer) Bart Freundlich uses the quintessential New York setting to little effect, and while that’s been done before it wouldn’t have hurt to see some nice establishing landmarks. In that sense though, The Rebound is largely character-driven, which is more than a lot of romantic films can vouch for. Catherine Zeta-Jones is ever classy and dominant as control freak Sandy, while Justin Bartha rolls wise-guy and romantic into one with Aram, showing off more acting chops than in breakthrough film The Hangover. Callahan and the Cherry twins are charming and wholly entertaining as Sadie and Frank Jr., knowing too much popular culture slang for their own good and bringing much needed life into what otherwise would be a very dull film. The combination with Bartha works a treat, and the central cast make for a strong ensemble. However, for all of this the film doesn’t scream ‘classic’. While there’s an interesting (and not too cheesy) ending, it lacks any real fantasy Hollywood romance – and that’s what often makes a film of this sort rise above the rest.

Verdict:

The Rebound lives up to its name: it’s a welcome relief from the stresses of life, but not everlasting and eventually just a memory.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-stars/the-rebound-review/feed/ 0 http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/4-stars/degrassi-junior-high-season-1-3-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/4-stars/degrassi-junior-high-season-1-3-review/#comments Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:38:22 +0000 Katina Vangopoulos http://cutprintreview.com/?p=9767 Following the short series The Kids of Degrassi Street (1982), Degrassi Junior High (DJH) truly established the franchise centring on a bunch of young teens from Toronto that come together from all walks of life at their local school. But the difference between Degrassi and everything else is what hadn’t been explored before on television, perhaps anywhere in the world – the true issues facing teenagers. As testament, Australian public broadcaster ABC issued warnings of adult themes before screening each episode, and would continue to do so decades later on Degrassi: The Next Generation.

*This article contains spoilers – read with caution!*

Sex, drugs and family abuse are just some of the topics presented in the Canadian three-season show, and throughout each season, the ensemble cast get their time to individually shine and develop their characters. Season One is the first half of Years Seven and Eight, with a key focus on Steph (Nicole Stoffman), who decides to shed her ‘geeky’ image for a more ‘sophisticated’ look. Today it would be called something else as she tries to grow up much too quickly, but the emphasis on this pushes the idea of peer pressure that affects 99 per cent of teens during adolescence. While the reactions from her fellow students seem fairly tame and innocent, let’s not forget that the eighties were the raw beginning of open discussion about previously taboo social issues. Other notable episodes of Season One concern Rick (Craig Driscoll) abused by his father and Spike (Amanda Stepto) suspecting she’s pregnant after an eventful house party. It’s important to note here that these are 12-14 year olds, but DJH proved, and still does, that kids aren’t sheltered anymore.

Season Two continues as the second half of Years Seven and Eight, with Spike having had the baby and refusing father Shane (Billy Parrott) any involvement besides child support (the poor guy pays through money from an after-school job). Steph is still boy-crazy and tries to win the attention of Simon (Michael Carry). The same format continues as one character is the focus of any given episode, and the most interesting to develop are Lucy (Anais Granofsky), after appearances by substitute teacher Mr. Colby (Marcus Bruce), and Caitlin (Stacie Mistysyn) trying to hide her epilepsy for fear of being outcast. Caitlin is by far the most interesting character – although a Seven, she attracts the attention of many Eights and is presented as the most level-headed and the one with the best fashion sense. Yes, there were some good styles in the eighties.

Season Three marks a new year, but the Eights (now Nines) remain at DJH because the school’s added a Ninth grade. Their disdain is clear for some time as they visit the ‘proper’ local high school for certain classes. There, Lucy meets Paul (Michael Blake) and falls privy to nasty rumours. New characters emerge again as old ones fade (notably Steph, whose parents decide a private education was what she needed) and there are still fresh issues to be explored. The ‘three stooges’ of Joey, Wheels and Snake, while  prevalent throughout the whole series and providing much of the comic relief with their rock star ambitions, really claim the spotlight in a more dramatic round. Joey (Pat Mastroianni) finds a benefit of repeating Eighth grade, while Snake (Stefan Brogren) faces an unnerving truth from his idol and Wheels (Neil Hope) finds death hard to face.

Each season ends with an important twist, and even now they wouldn’t be deemed too predictable. Different directors were enlisted throughout the series, but Kit Hood predominantly ran her creation – and to powerful effect. It’s enormously dated with the clothes and hairstyles but it’s so cool in its retroness and its topics are so varied that it’s a very easy watch. Not as much when you realise the topics are so easily relatable though; it’s amazing just how much the storylines of these teens ring true (albeit slightly modified) with today’s counterparts. Degrassi: The Next Generation is living proof of that. It might be easy to laugh at the sometimes forced speech, but the cast is solid. Whether they irritate you or surprise you, there’s always someone with a problem. And while that may not seem realistic to some, there’s always something lurking in everyone’s shadow. Degrassi Junior High just had the balls to finally show it.

During the Bravo Company’s year-long deployment in the Iraqi capital, Sergeant JT Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Special Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) must deal with the death of team leader Senior Sergeant Matt Thompson (Guy Pearce). When replacement SSG William James (Jeremy Renner) arrives, they are tested mentally and physically as he pushes them into reckless situations that nearly cost them their lives. Diffusing bombs and settling bomb threats are the crux of their duty, and with their job being one of the most suspenseful, it sets the film up for an intriguing journey.

Bigelow reveals the irony many American soldiers face – the countdown until the end of their deployment always remains at the forefront of their minds, but the uncertainty that faces them on their return home lingers (and often keeps them abroad).  The opening words shown on the screen (that ‘war is a drug’) remain with you for the film’s entirety as the adrenaline rush of the group’s work both scares and excites James. It’s he who becomes the centrepiece of the film after his delayed entrance; we’re allowed into his world slowly as Bigelow reveals that between the displays of masculine prowess from his ‘macho’ exterior there’s something about a normal life that he doesn’t understand. The hardest decision for him comes at the film’s end in a surprisingly laughable moment where Bigelow hints at the lack of good consumer choices in the States.

The Hurt Locker may focus on seemingly prominent events during their time in Baghdad, but doesn’t overdo the constant explosions. It is a ‘man’s man’ film, but there’s a lot to like about the un-stylised action. It’s more about the tension, which really stands out with the fear of a sudden end. It has a similar eeriness to Apocalypse Now in regards to the human psyche, as we see Eldridge struggle emotionally after Thompson’s death and Sanborn become unsure of his own abilities. They’re the original team, but that means little in the grand scheme of war as it becomes just as much about every man for himself. For James, the innocent civilians become a focus and highlight to us that there are always people hurt in conflict. This knowledge comes to haunt him as the story plays out and affects you watching just the same.

All the performances are noteworthy, particularly Renner as James, who’s everything from a hard-arse to a scared being, and a rough cameo from Ralph Fiennes.

It’s a slow-burning story as their endurance is tested, with gritty cinematography getting up-close-and-personal with these men. The use of slo-mo shots highlighting the impact of an explosion again puts you right in there. They’re used well to make viewers see that a moment may seem like a lifetime but the impact is instant; a truly haunting feeling. It’s a film that surprises in its hard-hitting reality, with a documentary feel grasping the portrayal of war with and showing a gripping account of what soldiers are signing up for.

Verdict:

The Hurt Locker gives nothing away on the surface but what’s underneath is extremely intriguing. The suspense may just kill you.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/4-stars/the-hurt-locker-review/feed/ 0 http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/2-12-stars/edge-of-darkness-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/2-12-stars/edge-of-darkness-review/#comments Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:05:58 +0000 Katina Vangopoulos http://cutprintreview.com/?p=9194 Thomas Craven is a man of impulse and no consequence. Your daughter being shot to death would do that to you. Especially if she was standing beside you on the front porch. So begins Mel Gibson’s first acting appearance since 2002, as a father seeking revenge (or answers) for his daughter’s death. As the second adaptation of a BBC series this summer (following January’s In The Loop), Edge Of Darkness holds a mix of British and American filmmaking, but the merger fails to deliver.

The film has a lot to hold up to, being based on what’s widely considered by critics and fans alike as one of Britain’s most important television dramas. Originally made in the politically heavy Thatcher era of the mid-‘80s, the emerging plot of nuclear research plant Northmoor and their internal activities is still relevant in the post-9/11 world. After Emma’s (Bojana Novakovic) death, Thomas (Gibson) uses all of his cop credentials to find out why his daughter, an employee of Northmoor, was a target. Of course, being a cop gives you an advantage into accessing files and destroying evidence. But from here it already becomes as tedious as he gets frustrated – very. It becomes more uneven as it goes on, with the introduction of key characters seemingly pointless. Because Gibson’s forced to run a one-man show, it’s only the odd threat to him that shakes Edge Of Darkness up to give it any lasting life.

To be fair, the plot is a good concept. And no doubt, with the cut from TV to film pieces will go missing. But that’s the risk you take with spin-off adaptations, and it’s not always worth it. The story is dragged out but in the wrong places; you aren’t given enough to care about anyone but Craven and he’s the most unstable of the lot. Although the home video sequences and imagined conversations with Emma create a bit of sympathy and concern, it counts for nothing when we see his reckless actions. And they get more extravagant and ‘tough’ as it goes on. The mix of British and American-style filmmaking seems to separate particular scenes in the film, which is a concern – a mix of Hollywood-style car chases compared with more grittier and personal close-up confrontations. It gives the film a mismatched feel that unsettles you as you watch; really, you need one or the other. Needless to say, this doesn’t bode well for the co-production. It’s set in America with all but one Englishman, Jedburgh (Ray Winstone), who is arguably thrown in there for the heck of it – so you could also argue that it’s Hollywood with English influence. Any laughs you may possess will likely come off Winstone’s sarcasm as Jedburgh but this film isn’t meant to be a happy one. It’s not meant to be a sad one either, so it really stands neither here nor there.

Mel Gibson’s strong enough in his acting return and Danny Huston (as Northmoor boss Jack Bennett) presents the best threat as the villain. The international flavour continues through Aussie Bojana Novakovic as Emma and Kiwi director Martin Campbell, who also directed the BBC series. Campbell struggles to keep the film tight as the plots dips into the uninteresting; his world of production can’t help him save it, which disappoints. Edge Of Darkness needed more fleshing out on more integral points – not the introduction of characters we don’t have time to care about before they die. Too many of those make for a monotonous film – as does most of the bloodshed throughout.

Verdict:

The attempt at grittiness comes off soft as a ‘half-Hollywood’ film. Gibson’s good but it falls off the edge into darkness and doesn’t return.

[Rating: 2.5/5]

As the British Prime Minister’s Communications director, Malcolm Tucker (Peter Capaldi) finds himself in a prickly situation. When International Development minister Simon Foster (Valkyrie’s Tom Hollander) claims that war (with the Middle East) is unforeseeable and that they must ‘climb the mountain of conflict’ it’s the beginning of a political frenzy that manages to sprawl across British-American relations. Along with the minister who doesn’t know what he thinks or how to handle himself, throw in a bumbling advisor Toby Wright (Chris Addison) who can’t man up to his responsibilities and an American team as sneaky as the Brits and you have a war within a (potential) war. The rivalry between the traditional Allies is played up as In The Loop plays around with pop references, but is served with a typically British flavour. In a similar vein to TV’s The Office, the film carries a haughty aura about it; a mocking in the way the hostility and sarcasm is carried across between characters on-screen. But it’s this dry humour that makes the story and plot come together; for otherwise it would be rather bland.

Director Armando Iannucci’s choice to transfer his BBC show The Thick of It to the big screen has it’s pros and cons. Purely as a film, In The Loop looks at the circles politics runs around, and while most find how they manage to stay afloat fascinating, there’s only so much wittiness and quips we can watch before we get irritated at the fact that not much actually happens. But Iannucci makes it clear to know who to love and who to hate, which often makes watching a film that bit easier. It appears he was smart to keep the central character in his show’s transition; Peter Capaldi is comfortable in the role of Tucker as he should be, given he’s played him for three TV seasons. He’s the glue that holds the film together and his frustration at not getting anything done is intriguing – there are some real gems in the countless curses this Scotsman manages to spit out. The cultural confusion between the Brits and the Americans is amusing also; seeing the Yanks interact with their take on the ways of British sarcasm is rarely seen on the big screen. James Gandolfini as Lieutenant General George Miller shows a side away from his Sopranos days, while Anna Chlumsky from My Girl is grown up and all the professional as Liza Weld. The intimate camera work gives us attachment but sometimes with the feel of a mockumentary, which at times is paradoxical. The script is undoubtedly witty though, and while not much actually happens it’s engaging enough.

Verdict

So we really do go in circles… with politicians, its part of the job description. Still, In The Loop presents a reality check that nothing happens if we stick inside the square.

The film is something you won’t expect, especially within our film industry where the gritty drama has dominated over the last decade. Last year’s Samson and Delilah explored the current hardships that many Indigenous people face, but Bran Nue Dae’s 1969 setting signals the beginning of a more prevalent recognition. Willie’s (Rocky McKenzie) story and self-discovering journey aren’t necessarily groundbreaking, but the film’s amusing manner allows forgiveness and a largely enjoyable ride. When he runs away from boarding school in Perth to return to his home of Broome and love Rosie (Australian Idol 2006 runner-up Jessica Mauboy), teaming up with homeless Uncle Tadpole (Dingo) begins a bizarre road-trip that takes the young man out of his comfort zone. Willie’s a good kid that yearns to be home, thriving on his desire to be with Rosie and in familiar surroundings. The film explores the pride of Indigenous culture, but at the same time never takes itself seriously. It plays on the stereotype of goon-loving hobos but rarely highlights a negative divide between Indigenous and ‘white’ Australians. And it doesn’t need to – the songs provide a pretty self-explanatory impression of Willie’s situation.

Based on the 1990 stage musical of the same name, the songs truly add to the film. They’re positioned well and don’t tire, while the content is something to truly marvel. Satirically poking fun at Western ideals, singing “There’s nothing I would rather be/Than to be an A-bo-rigine” brings plenty of laughs (as does the outlandish choreography), while Dingo manages to get through a sobering solo. The singer influence is important too, with Mauboy and Missy Higgins adding credibility to duets and extending their repertoire. The cast all hold their own; Rocky McKenzie exudes innocence as Willie in his debut feature, and Geoffrey Rush’s German accent is a hoot; Deborah Mailman’s turn as a drunk is the funniest you’ve ever seen her. Director Rachel Perkins has done well to earn a spot at Sundance 2010, and with this film showcases charming Indigenous comic talent. Each member of the cast provides laughs, intertwining sub-plots are well handled and the story is kept appropriately at a very tight 88 minutes. Bran Nue Dae gets funnier as it goes along, and its slow build-up pays off for the surprising finale. The climax may be slightly far-fetched, but so those in most musicals.

Verdict

It’s a Bran Nue Dae for Australian comedy – enjoyable and satirical; it’s a pleasant surprise for an easy watch.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/bran-nue-dae-review/feed/ 0