I have to say, I wasn’t expecting a great deal from When in Rome, a romantic comedy featuring Kristen Bell, who I found to be rather uninteresting in the adult comedy Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Despite my reservations, When in Rome does have its merits – although it doesn’t re-invent the wheel by any stretch of the imagination.

As with many films of its genre, When in Rome centres on a woman unlucky in love: Beth (Kristen Bell) is an art curator at the prestigious Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum in New York, who works harder for her job than she does for her relationships. As a result, she is quite bitter about her whole situation, especially with her sister’s upcoming wedding in Rome. During her short trip to Rome for the wedding, Beth meets a handsome groom’s man named Nick (Josh Duhamel). During the reception she succeeds in sufficiently embarrassing herself in front of him and to top it off, sees him with another woman.

During a drunken moment melancholy, Beth decides to steal some change from the Fontana De Amore, a fountain that supposedly brings love to those who throw in a coin. Unbeknownst to Beth, each coin she takes casts a love spell on its owner, leaving them smitten with devotion for her. Back in New York, Beth is trying to organise an important exhibition, when a magician (Jon Herder), an Italian painter (Will Arnett), a male model (Dax Shepard), a sausage fanatic (Danny DeVito) and Nick appear out of nowhere to try competing for her love. Beth must then find a way to break the spell, while dealing with her job and the moral dilemma of falling for a falsely spellbound Nick.

Although it is a neat idea, the plot falls into cliché frequently. With obligatory “romcom” elements including the jealous moment, the embarrassing moment, the deep and meaningful conversation, the realisation of past mistakes and the last minute decision for love. All very standard and very uninspiring, but if that’s what floats your boat this film is worth a look. Not because it’s formulaic, but because there’s an added extra of some pretty decent comedy.

I must say, the opening of the film was rather cheap for laughs, as the film resorts to a lot of standard “embarrassing” moments where Beth makes a fool of herself on several occasions in front of several people. However, it all becomes much funnier with the introduction of Beth’s spellbound lovers. Jon Herder of Napoleon Dynamite fame is sufficiently creepy as the street magician, who thinks illusion and trickery is the way to a woman’s heart. Fans will want to keep an eye out for a neat Dynamite reference as well. Danny DeVito provides some humorously awkward moments, with a preference for meat over flowers as romantic gesture. Unfortunately, Will Arnett is a little too ridiculous as an Italian stereotype, though the comedy in his character still manages to find its feet at some points. However, Dax Shepard is by far the best act in the film as the self obsessed model, his unwavering vanity is delivered well and his character alone will at least stop you regretting your ticket purchase. Bobby Moynihan comes a close second as Nick’s best friend Puck, who fears his bromance might be ending because of the “suspicious” Beth.

Unfortunately, the non comedic roles in the film are rather average, although the actors don’t have a great deal to work with. It’s just the humour that stands out from the formula – any serious or feel-good moments are rather predictable and bland. Kristen Bell is fairly stoic in her expressions and Josh Duhamel doesn’t pull much out of the hat either. Maybe if the serious moments in the script had been penned better and the direction by Mark Steven Johnson had done something a bit quirkier, the serious and comedic acting could have gelled more comfortably.

Overall, you won’t regret seeing this movie if you like the occasional romantic comedy. I’m personally not the biggest fan of the genre, but could certainly find moments to enjoy. “Light entertainment” is probably the most apt description. If you hate the genre, but you’re being dragged along by a partner, you might be surprised by the laughs to be had. It is a strong comedic effort from a film that could have been equally as stale.

Verdict:

When in Rome does as the Romans do, but with extra laughs for good measure.

]

With Tron Legacy on the way after 28 years, the original Tron has clearly left a lasting impression. Whether this impression is worth a tight sequel, with a strong story or a glossy, shallow cash-in, remains to be seen. However, an examination of the original 1982 film may indicate whether Tron Legacy will be worth the price of your ticket in the end. This is why I have decided to review Tron on DVD, as any upcoming sequel deserves at least a small investigation of its origins.

It is the early 1980′s and Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) has been swindled out of some lucrative intellectual property: video games. During his employment at technology company ENCOM, Flynn’s game designs were stolen by fellow employee Ed Dillinger (David Warner), who used them to gain power in the company. Now ENCOM’s Senior Vice President, Dillinger has created the Master Control Program (MCP), an intelligent system that controls ENCOM’s computer network, while also stealing programs from other companies to increase its power autonomously. Flynn is determined to procure evidence from ENCOM’s network to prove Dillinger theft. But after breaking into an ENCOM laboratory, Flynn is transported into the computer network itself by the MCP.

Inside the network is a visually striking world of programs, bits, memory and data in the form of a society. This society is governed by the Master Control Program, whose tyrannical regime dictates the lives of captured programs. These programs appear as humanoids resembling their programmers (or “users” as they are known), many of which are imprisoned for believing in such “users” and forced to compete in fatal “computer games”. Flynn teams up with an independent security program named Tron (Bruce Boxleitner) to fight the Master Control Program and retrieve the valuable evidence hidden inside the system.

The concept behind Tron reminds me of Pixar films today such as Toy Story, or Cars, in that it brings life and emotion to an inanimate/non-human world. Tron, as Pixar has done, also applies the rules of the inanimate world and translates it into the world of the film. Therefore references to computers and the vernacular are rife, clever and very welcome. I particularly enjoyed the appearance of a ‘bit’ which could only communicate in positive and negative terms.

Tron, of course is not aimed at proficients in computing, it is aimed at the family audience, so the plot itself is quite easy to follow and an enjoyable one at that. The themes are equally mild, despite addressing ideas of religion, faith, truth and authority. Don’t worry though, religious and atheist families will both find something here to teach their kids. I was impressed that the film addressed these themes at all, when the appeal was clearly focused on the visuals at the time of production. Many times films have failed to live up to their visuals with complementary plots, but Tron delivers a simple, yet satisfying 90 minutes of story.

From a 2010 perspective, the visual flair of Tron is still brilliant, for several reasons. Many of the physical sets in the computer world are extraordinary, even by today’s standards. There are moments where everything on screen looks as if it was drawn with a neon marker. Each character is dressed in glowing blue or red suits that fizzle and resonate with vibrancy, while their skin looks monochrome and high contrast. There are also computer generated sequences incorporated within the film that fit almost perfectly. Although it is very dated, the effects could successfully be described as retro CGI, rather than tacky. In fact, the CGI set pieces are extremely well choreographed. They even use real world camera techniques, with tracking and panning shots, making the limited detail in the action very exciting. This is also helped along by some excellent sound effects during the various chase and battle sequences.

Unfortunately, less praise can be said about the music, which was a real disappointment compared to the rest of the film. The problem with science fiction music in the 1980′s is that it is both atmospheric and eerie (e.g. Blade Runner) or it sounds unpleasant and chaotic. Tron fits into the latter category, which is a shame because good music could have really stepped this film up.

The acting is well done overall, although you can’t really expect in-depth performances from people portraying programs. However, Jeff Bridges is really great throughout, adopting a strong sense of adventure and a fun attitude. Bruce Boxleitner’s character, the security program Tron, doesn’t carry the movie as you would expect from the title, but he does come across as a strong, no nonsense individual.

I really did enjoy Tron more than I expected. Although, I feel you do have to watch it with the right attitude. Don’t expect to see a timeless classic, but rather a retro classic. Many younger viewers may find it hard to watch something slower than contemporary science fiction, but if your family has sophisticated appreciation and the capacity to sit through older movies, Tron is definitely worth the trip back in time. Regarding the necessity of a sequel: I think the idea is rather intriguing, although not entirely necessary. I welcome the return of Jeff Bridges though and look forward to seeing how 28 years has changed his character and the film world.

Verdict:

Looking for something 80′s, retro and science fiction? Tron is the film for you.

[Rating: 4/5]

With the current economic crisis in the United States, the sequel to Oliver Stone’s white collar drama Wall Street seems like an apt idea. Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps (more easily known as ‘Wall Street 2′) is coming soon, but has the original motion picture stood the test of time to deserve another outing at the box office? If the current economy was in better shape, then I may have reservations. However, recent concern over the United States economy means a sequel is not only justified, but very intriguing. In light of this, I have decided to review the 1988 original on DVD to see whether this franchise is worth a look.

Wall Street follows Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen), a young man working for a firm in lower Manhattan. Bud is a lowly broker, whose job is to contact clients and advise them on good investments in the stock market. Despite having a blue collar Father (Martin Sheen) and being surrounded by competing brokers at his firm, Bud wants to make it big. He wants to become a real player like Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas).

Gekko makes his living off investing and selling stocks in companies as they rise to fortune, or fall into the abyss. Bud desperately wants to advise him on some investment ideas, but is consistently rejected by Gekko’s secretary. When Bud finally gets a chance to speak with him, Gekko is initially unimpressed, until Bud tells him to invest in the airline his father works for. Gekko likes the idea, because Bud tells him some inside information on his Father’s union activity.

We soon find out, that using inside information to make investment decisions is illegal on the stock market, yet Gordon Gekko uses this tactic to keep an edge on his competition. Bud is soon sucked into the world of insider trading and becomes Gordon Gekko’s financial informant.

Unfortunately, the film does little to describe the intricacies of stock market trading and some points in the film seem more than a little confusing. Readers of the Wall Street Journal, or other financial publications should get more out of the details in this film than most casual viewers. Luckily, all is not lost to the general viewer, as the surrounding characters drive a solid story if you manage to grip a basic understanding of the film’s world (and most people should).

Although Gordon Gekko is clearly the cause of conflict throughout the story, the argument for his point of view is engaging and well portrayed by Michael Douglas. Some of the dialogue sequences are simply masterful as Gekko explains why insider trading is a good thing or how making money is addictive, yet good. Charlie Sheen plays the determined, clever and slightly arrogant Bud Fox well, shadowing Gekko like a bit of a schmuck. Darien Taylor (Daryl Hannah) is Bud’s love interest and adds a lot to the glamorous social side of this financial tale, portraying the snobbery of wealth in her opinion of art and design, while providing conflict and motivation for Bud’s character. Martin Sheen is appropriately cast as Bud’s father (he is father to Charlie Sheen in real life) and is successfully “working class” in his role.

I really enjoyed the atmosphere in Wall Street; Manhattan is photographed brilliantly, often draped in sunset or sunrise. If it isn’t orange cityscape sunsets, it’s cold white overcast days; there’s nothing bright and sunny about this world in down town New York. The music is also brilliant, very 1980′s and consequently very mysterious and enticing; with synthesised organ, bells, powerful piano, drum machine and strings. Set design is excellent too, pretentious modern art covers Gordon Gekko’s wall; leather chairs, large desks and several computer screens decorate rich men’s abodes.

Wealth in 1980′s America is made to look extremely appealing. A very masculine, power driven addiction to money and business is conveyed enticingly. The vibe is similar to that in American Psycho, of the corporate world. The film certainly avoids highlighting the dull aspects of big business that permeate the contemporary idea of “boring, fat cats in suits”.

Wall Street is ultimately an enjoyable feature, although it is bogged down by dialogue using financial vernacular, without being clear enough on the audience. The atmosphere and characters are great, however, and the financial commentary gleamed off the surface remains interesting, despite having the detail reserved for those educated few. I’m not sure whether a sequel is the best idea for this film, which is wrapped up nicely at the end – but at the same time, our current world is different from that in Wall Street and seeing the change from 1985 to 2010 is an interesting concept.

Verdict:

I would hope that financial aficionados get even more out of Wall Street, but for general audiences it’s still worth a look if you want something different and topical with good characters.

[Rating:3.5/5]

And it has ghosts in it. Really freaking scary ghosts.

To rewind briefly, The Eclipse follows Michael Farr (Ciarán Hinds), a wood-working teacher at the local school and a father of two who has lost his wife to cancer. Set amongst the seaside Irish town of Cobh, Michael helps out at the annual writer’s festival that’s currently taken over the town, driving around some of the many writers that have flown in to promote their books. His duties at the festival soon have him ferrying about Lena (Iben Hjejle), a writer of a popular supernatural book called “The Eclipse”, as well as the festival’s star author Nicholas (Aidan Quinn).

The inevitable relationship triangle that follows could easily have spiralled into the cliché and irritating, but the film is skilful at quietly and delicately drawing us to these characters, helped in no small measure by some terrific acting. Aidan Quinn doesn’t hold back as the smug, casually condescending and desperately clingy Nicholas, obsessed to distraction with Lena. What could easily have been an irritating comic role is lent a measure of sympathy by Quinn. Iben Hjejle meanwhile evokes a wonderfully natural and understated performance as Lena, whose career is still tied to the ghosts of her own past. But it is Ciarán Hinds that steals the show, masterfully playing the widower Michael as he begins to be haunted (by a ghost perhaps, though it is never made clear) with increasing intensity throughout the movie. Michael has a quiet way about him, almost endearingly clumsy at parts, yet the restrained portrayal of his suffering is painfully real and unsentimental.

What makes it all the more powerful is the film’s overwhelming sense of normalcy – a meticulously natural and realistic portrayal of these characters and their world. The movie luxuriates on little details of ordinary life, lulling the audience into a false sense of security. And that’s when the scares hit. They did not happen often, indeed I could probably count them on one hand. But when they came, boy did they hit hard. I jumped in my seat more than once, and someone screamed (loudly) during one of the more frightening scenes. So intense were the scares that even during the rather moving and beautiful climax of the film, I could not help but think that at any moment another terrifying shock lay around the corner.

Luckily, there wasn’t one, saving the film’s good taste and reminding me that perhaps I had watched too many cheesy horror flicks and was expecting the worst. Yet what was strange was that these were gory ghostly scares, more suitable perhaps for a Korean or Japanese shock-horror movie than a quiet Irish drama. Yet they worked not against the grain of the film, but with it. I’m still trying to wrap my head around why. Perhaps because the film strongly encourages but never confirms the presence of the supernatural, contrasting the talk of ghosts and the terrifying visitations or premonitions with the unspoken assumption that Michael is suffering from intense grief and that his terrors stem from his own traumatised mind.

But at its core, The Eclipse is a truly beautiful and touching film. Its characters feel rich and incredibly real, the setting of the seaside Cobh itself is gorgeous, and the story grapples well with some deep and difficult themes, most of all loss. I also couldn’t go without mentioning the superb original score by Fionnuala Ni Chiosain, which somehow smoothly flowed between the lovely and melancholy and the downright eerie with unnatural ease. And while The Eclipse is certainly not a horror film, it’s probably scarier than any I’ve seen in the past five years, in all the best ways.

Starting in 1992, Batman: The Animated Series was designed for children’s programming; however it contains numerous qualities to impress anyone who takes animation seriously. This is not just a children’s show, but a worthy addition to the Batman name and the superhero genre overall. The series chronicles and interprets various aspects of Batman lore as well as presenting original stories in short 22 minute episodes, with some of the more complex plots spanning two episodes. Each story involves Batman (voiced by Kevin Conroy) investigating and fighting crimes perpetrated by the various super villains and mobsters of Gotham City. Although this initially sounds like it could get repetitive over the 28 episodes in volume one, it rarely does. This is because episodes are varied in their approach and have different elements of interest to the viewer. Stories may focus on the origin of a super villain, while others cover the psychology of Bruce Wayne (Batman’s identity). Episodes can be funny, mysterious or dramatic and occasionally told from different perspectives.

Familiar faces from the Batman universe make regular appearances, without being overused. Bruce Wayne’s dry witted butler Alfred assists in keeping the dialogue flowing from the lonely Dark Knight without stealing the limelight, like Robin might. Robin does appear, but only when necessary, volume one is about Batman, rather than his adopted hero family. Subsequently, any supporting characters in an episode have more time for development, which helps in particularly dramatic episodes. Several of the rogues’ gallery of Batman villains make their appearance in this volume, including the Joker, Two-Face, Catwoman, Poison Ivy, Clayface, Mr Freeze and the Penguin. Most of these characters work well, although the Penguin and Poison Ivy aren’t as strong as the other villains.

The Joker appears in several episodes, each acting as a sort of manic break from the more serious ones. Mark Hamill (of Luke Skywalker fame) voices the Joker brilliantly, juxtaposing his manic sense of humour and practical jokes with evil, more so than any other portrayal of the character on-screen. Die hard fans of Heath Ledger’s psychotic version of the character might cringe at this idea, but after accepting Hamill’s interpretation, the Joker becomes a lot of fun. The Animated Series adds even more to this enjoyment with the introduction of Harley Quinn, known to many fans as the Joker’s “girlfriend” – if you could call her that. Harley Quinn is an utterly charming villain, with her unfaltering love for “Mister J” (her name for the Joker) and his extreme version of a good time. Arleen Sorkin voices Harley, with a strong and characteristic Jewish accent, making the character instantly recognisable.

Stories involving the Joker and the introduction of Harley Quinn are not the only highlights from this volume. The Animated Series version of District Attorney Harvey Dent’s transformation into his alter-ego Two-Face is astonishingly good. In this version, Harvey Dent’s multiple personality disorder is set up strongly, making his transformation into a maniac very fluid and satisfying – trumping The Dark Knight’s version of the origin story easily, albeit with less thematic weight. However, it is episodes like this, in the series, which broaden the audience from children to adults.

There is also a lot of talking in some episodes for a children’s show, which means it either respects younger viewer’s intelligence, or expects a broader audience – either way, it works. The overall style, in fact, seems like something designed for an adult over a child. The show is very moody with high contrast, spot and back lighting. Gotham City also looks very classic, but also very gothic and mysterious at times. In fact, in one of the special features on the volume one DVD, Producer Alan Burnett describes the program as “Dark Deco”, by which he means dark Art Deco. In this Gotham city, there is a ‘Chrysler building’ on every corner. Ultimately, it feels like a style adults would enjoy, but it is an interesting move to bring it to children as well.

The music is also orchestrated throughout each episode, bringing a strong sense of drama or excitement to each piece; thankfully it doesn’t change to bad rock music when it’s time for Batman to bang some heads. My only disappointment with the music was that it does become repetitive if you watch too many episodes in succession.

There is little to dislike about Batman: The Animated Series, it retains a mature sensibility, while being suitable entertainment for most children. It’s also nice to see another quality traditional animation, in our current era of computer generated content. If you like superheroes, animation or feel nostalgic about 90′s children’s programs, you will probably find something to enjoy here. It’s just a shame Warner Brothers haven’t released the second volume in Australia, given that the first is such high quality programming.

Volume one of Batman: The Animated Series can be found as a box set including special features, while episodes from it can be found on separate DVD’s, which are more widely available.

The plot unfolds like a candy wrapper with no sweet inside, as Butler takes on the role of an ex-cop turned bounty hunter, with a gambling addiction and a crazy ex-wife, named Milo Boyd. Aniston is Nicole Hurley, an investigative reporter on the hunt for story details – the most important thing in the world – meaning she defies a court summons and is resultantly pursued by her aforementioned bounty hunter ex-husband. Coincidentally, the audience are expected to believe these developments whilst ignoring any concept of characterization for the two; his dignity is ignored by virtue of plot holes that never fill in why or how he handed in his badge, accrued a gambling debt and lost his wife. Nicole Hurley is, on the same wave, as underdeveloped. Playing a physical personification of a walking and whining piece of steak, happy-go-lucky Rachel from Friends is now so muscular and unnaturally brown she should have been cast in Antz, although she still has the same haircut. They each try to out-do the other in order to fulfill their individual desires but resolve to realize they somehow belong together, a conclusion lost on their audience.

Butler hauls on thorough this story as an all-American type, despite growls of his Scottish accent annoyingly poking through his Alpha Yank façade. If this film is to be written AND sold as a Gerard Butler and Jennifer Aniston flick, then the principal mistake here is to have him play himself with a bonus uncomfortable accent. Especially when Butler’s previous success built from his “sexy” Scottish appeal, think P.S I Love You, parallel to the American-Quarterback-gun slinging hero overused in Hollywood, evident here.

Director Andy Tennant has hit previous high notes with sweet movies such as Fools Rush In, Ever After and Sweet Home Alabama. His film Hitch made us all laugh at Will Smith again, and his direction in Fools’ Gold ensured familiarity with a well framed, shirtless Matthew McConaughey at every chance. Here you can see he is working for the money, as there is absolutely nothing that would set this film apart from being just another second rate, direct-to-DVD if it were not for the names Butler and Aniston attached. There is not even a title song worth remembering. Mention goes to SNL’s Jason Sudeikis who supports humorously as the pathetic and overweight co-worker in love with but not good enough for Nicole. This will only annoy any 30Rock fans out there who know him as Liz Lemon’s one time perfect lover. Christine Baranski plays Nicole’s casino dancing mother Kitty, who should have been named Mutton. Funniest scene involves Aniston crashing a golf cart into a pond, because for just a second, it seems they will not resurface. For a version of the same thing that is ten thousand times better, see Tarantino’s 1997 adaptation of Elmore Leonard’s book Rum Punch, called Jackie Brown.

Verdict:
Your parents might like it just because Gerard and Jennifer are unlikely to appeal to younger audiences…but I doubt it.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-star/the-bounty-hunter-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.

Much of that last sentance, I hope you realise, is complete hogwash; no rogue soldier singlehandedly unearthed the WMD scandal, and even if he had, he most certainly wouldn’t have done it while running and gunning his way around war-torn Iraq as if it were a videogame. Yet this is exactly the kind of nonsense preached in director Paul Greengrass’ (The Bourne Identity, United 93)  misguided political thriller Green Zone, a title derived from the Coalition’s safe zone in Baghdad during the Iraq occupation.

In a flagrant effort to get box office takings into the green zone of a different kind, the film abridges and drastically rewrites the messy history of the Iraq invasion to better suit Hollywood heroism, turning a potentially intelligent and provocative political thriller into little more than a generic Bourne sequel.

Even as cushy popcorn action, Green Zone misfires. Only during the opening act — where Chief Warrant Officer Miller and his outfit make a move on a suspected WMD site only to discover cobwebs – was I genuinely thrilled. Nearly all of the action that follows comes across as derivative and detached, namely because we’re given no reason to care for anyone but Miller on the battlefield. Since he’s played by leading man Matt Damon, suspense is hard to come by as you can rest assured knowing he won’t be killed off any time soon. As for the rest of his squad of brave soldiers? Who cares; we barely get to know their names.

That’s where Brian Helgeland’s screenplay stumbles: it’s so intensely focused on just one character, everyone else is reduced to cardboard cut-outs. Greg Kinnear’s character Clark Poundstone — a Pentagon Special Intelligence operative who thinks the needs of Iraq are synonymous with the wants of the US – makes for such a two-dimensional baddie, he could very well be the next Bond villain. Then there’s Brendan Gleeson as sceptical CIA chief Martin Brown, most notable for sounding like an angry pirate. Lastly, Amy Ryan portrays Wall Street Journal correspondent Lawrie Dayne, an insipid character who more accurately should have been credited as ‘Plot Device’.

Matt Damon, who always manages to look good wielding a gun, uses his understated charisma and down-to-earth disposition to prevent Miller from coming across as the superhuman action hero he really is.  Along with some impressive art direction – particularly in the early scenes where we see the devastation left behind by the initial airstrike – Damon saves this film from completely bombing.

Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd’s (The Bourne Identity, The Hurt Locker) notoriously shaky camera work is certainly disorienting, but thankfully isn’t as nauseating as it has been in the past (maybe I’m just getting used to it). Far more frustrating was the excessive use of film grain, which made it damn near impossible to see what’s going on during the poorly staged night-time action finale. If it weren’t for a few crystal clear cutaway shots to Army Headquarters, I would have said that the print used for the preview screening was smeared in sand.

One of the many reasons why The Hurt Locker recently left the Oscars with the title of Best Picture is because it doesn’t get bogged down in the politics of the Iraq war. Why is that a good thing? Without an agenda, the film had time to get down and dirty with the characters – you know, those things audiences connect with – making the action all the more gripping as we genuinely cared for, and believed in, the soldiers depicted. Green Zone, making the same mistakes as all the other films set in Iraq, places the politics before the people.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/2-stars/green-zone-review/feed/ 4 http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/2-stars/remember-me-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/2-stars/remember-me-review/#comments Thu, 04 Mar 2010 15:52:08 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=9650 Something unexpected happened around the half hour mark of the ho-hum romantic drama Remember Me. No, the film didn’t start to improve. Don’t be silly.  Rather, I realised that leading man Robert Pattinson – or RPattz as his legions of adoring Twilight fans call him – was in the middle of doing something many critics said he wasn’t capable of. Yes, he was acting. And doing a pretty darn good job of it too.

However, aside from allowing Pattinson a chance to flex his acting chops, Remember Me isn’t good for much else. It sits awkwardly between the heavy drama and teen romance genres, and much like a misunderstood teenager, it isn’t sure where it belongs, ultimately alienating itself from both.

With an uncanny resemblance to James Dean, Pattinson portrays angst-ridden Tyler Hawkins, a 21-year-old Brooklyn boy with daddy issues. Still cut from by the loss of his older brother years before, Tyler channels his anger toward his father Charles (Pierce Brosnan), a successful businessman who places family a distant second. After a clash with a jaded police detective (Chris Cooper) lands him in jail for the night, Tyler’s best friend Aidan (Tate Ellington) suggests he enact his revenge by wooing the officer’s daughter Ally (Emilie de Ravin). However, the two find comfort in each other’s company and eventually fall in love, causing Tyler to bury the truth behind their supposed ‘chance’ encounter.

As implied by the film’s tag-line ‘Live Life in the Moment’, screenwriter Will Fetters has scribed a story about appreciating the little things. That’s fine, but did those little things all have to be this mundane?  While the dialogue flows naturally, most of the drama in Remember Me lacks any real weight of consequence, haphazardly strung together by director Allen Coulter (Hollywoodland) without much consideration for dramatic tension. If it wasn’t for Marcelo Zarvos’ poignant score, I wouldn’t have known at any given time what emotion I was supposed to be feeling.

With Remember Me predominantly appealing to starry-eyed teenage girls, it doesn’t help that the romance between Tyler and Ally is criminally underwritten. The two barely get a chance to share sob stories before they’re in each other’s pants. I guess when you’re the adored star of Twilight, girls don’t put up much of a fight. Nevertheless,  the credibility of their relationship suffers as a result, which seems more interested in giving Pattinson and De Ravin an excuse to show off some skin rather than develop in any kind of meaningful way.

De Ravin, let down by the two dimensional nature of her character, leaves little impression as Ally, which is a shame because the 28-year-old Lost star has talent. With a far meatier role, Pattinson crafts a likable character out of Tyler, handling each emotional shift far more convincingly than he ever did as Edward in Twilight. He goes head to head with acting veterans Chris Cooper and Pierce Brosnan and surprisingly comes out on top, proving he’s more than just a pretty face. In fact, the only time he is truly outshone is during his scenes with the tremendously talented 11-year-old actress Ruby Jerins, who plays Tyler’s younger sister Caroline. Their touching relationship is easily the highlight of an otherwise unremarkable film.

And that’s the cruel irony here; Remember Me is totally forgettable. It knows it, too. That’s why it features a shock ending that arrives like a sharp stab in the back, a desperate act to bleed emotion out of the audience in the most shameless of ways.  If it is to be remembered, it’ll be for all the wrong reasons.

Eisenheim the Illusionist (Edward Norton) is a successful performer in Vienna at the dawn of the 20^th century. His popularity garners the interest of the Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell), who attends one of Eisenheim’s shows and volunteers his date, Sophie (Jessica Biel) for the final magic act. Eisenheim discovers Sophie was his childhood sweetheart, a relationship disallowed by their difference of class. Eisenheim and Sophie’s romance reignites and they begin to disrupt the plans of Prince Leopold, who needs to marry Sophie as part of a plan to overthrow his father, the Emperor in an attempt to introduce a new form of government. Paul Giamatti plays Inspector Uhl, who is ordered by Leopold to discover Eisenheim’s the secrets and stop him interfering with his plan.

The performances overall are engaging, Norton and Giamatti evoke calm and deliberate characters, although it would have been nice to see a little more intensity between the two. Jessica Beil is very complimenting as Sophia and Rufus Sewell shines as the frustrated, violent and yet intellectual Prince. He is an unlikely antagonist, carrying ideas of fair government and rational thought – an interesting adversary to Eisenheim, who lives off mysticism, illusions and suspension of logic.

Overpowering the performances is the visual style of the film, the use of a strong tungsten filter and moody dark vignetting pervades most scenes, which partly detracts from any sense of realism and thrill. It feels calmer to watch though, especially with the slower movement of the camera and less erratic cutting of many modern pictures. Whether this style is too slow or relaxing will depend on the mood of the viewer, it certainly has the ability to go both ways for each individual.

The sound design compliments the visual style well. The overall feel would have been atrocious if there was a busy soundtrack, and luckily there isn’t. A downplayed sound mix with excellent brooding music by composer Philip Glass is a treat. Fans of Glass will not be disappointed by this score.

Unfortunately comparisons to The Prestige are going to haunt this film, and vice versa. The topic and mechanics of the stories are too similar. There are fewer thrills in The Illusionist and it maintains a slower pace. The magic tricks are based more in fantasy than The Prestige, some are even performed through obvious computer generated visual effects. The conflict between the characters is also less complicated and intense. Therefore Neil Burger’s film is a lot easier for the audience to follow, although the end portion of the film may be too abrupt for some.

For those of you who haven’t seen either picture, The Illusionist is still worth a watch. Food for thought and debate will certainly come from this movie – something any viewer should want out of a mystery.

Up in the Air is the blended product of screenwriter/director Jason Reitman’s brief but stellar career thus far, taking the cynical wit of his first venture Thank You For Smoking and mixing it with the cordial candour of his acclaimed follow-up Juno. The result is a shrewdly perceptive look at the globalised corporate culture of today, asking – and answering — the question of where relationships fit within our busy schedules.

Radiating enough charm to diffuse any high-tempered situation, Clooney was born to play Ryan Bingham; a man who jets across the USA from one business to another laying-off employees on behalf of gutless CEO’s. When he’s not committing corporate genocide, he’s conducting inspirational speeches about how relationships are unnecessary baggage that stop you from moving. “Make no mistake”, states Bingham to his class, “moving is living”. Editor Dana E. Glauberman seems to agree, chopping away at time like a master chef, lending a seductive energy to what could have been a lethargic 109 minutes.

Of course, Ryan’s nomadic way of life comes under threat by young know-it-all graduate Natalie (Anna Kendrick), who believes a internet video chat is a cost-effective alternative to the constant travelling. Feeling as though he’s about to be evicted from his home, Ryan takes Natalie out of the office and into the field to show her that there is a sense of dignity to his personalised, face-to-face approach.

But that’s just the coming of age component of the film — Up in the Air also doubles as an endearing romantic comedy where Bingham engages in a fiery no-strings affair with his female equivalent Alex Foran (Vera Farmiga). Yet what starts as casual becomes something more for Ryan, forcing him to rethink his insular outlook on life.

The structure sounds all too familiar on paper, but Reitman’s screenplay – which is based on the novel by Walter Kirn — flies past conventions in practice. Without being too pretentious, too vulgar or too sardonic, Reitman takes the qualities of the classic movie and remoulds it using 21st century humour and relevance; the great depression is now the global recession, the act of flirting is now comparing mileage points and breaking up is now done via text message.  Up in the Air is one of few movies to truly get with the times, and actually get it right.

You know a good director is at play when each cast member brings their absolute best to the table. For all accounts we should hate Ryan Bingham — he’s corporate sleaze who he gets paid to fire people and doesn’t care much for family — but Clooney’s limitless charm isn’t excessively exploited, preventing Ryan from coming across as overly smug. It works perfectly; we believe in Ryan. We like Ryan. Heck, we even relate with Ryan.

With few prior credits to her name, Anna Kendrick (Twilight, Elsewhere) turns heads as the naive college grad Natalie. She lends it an affable sincerity to what could have been an irritating, overly passé character designed to furtively educate Ryan who believes he’s the one educating her. The other woman in Ryan’s life is Alex, played with flirtatious spark by a sassy Vera Farmiga (Orphan, The Departed), entirely convincing as the one to break through Ryan’s dense defences and still come out on top.

The film has a few flaws; after two brilliantly refined acts, the message comes across too bluntly during a lengthy wedding sequence in the third act. Furthermore, obtrusive endorsements for American Airlines and Hertz have clearly wormed their way into the otherwise intelligent dialogue (“Hey! You forgot to hand me your Hertz #1 Priority Club Card!” unnecessarily yells one employee).

But these slight quibbles don’t stopped Up in the Air from being a great, often brilliant film. Few films speak such relevant truths whilst being this funny and this endearing. Get your boarding passes now, as this one’s flying straight to the top.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/4-12-stars/up-in-the-air-review/feed/ 2 http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-star/invictus-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/1-star/invictus-review/#comments Tue, 29 Dec 2009 06:41:07 +0000 Anders Wotzke http://cutprintreview.com/?p=8737 Indian spiritual leader Mahatma Gandhi got his own Hollywood biopic. So did legendary French heroine Joan of Arc, gay rights politician Harvey Milk, sporting great Muhammad Ali, Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara…heck, even gangster rapper 50 Cent got one.

So why is it that Nelson Mandela — a man who served a 27 year jail sentence in South Africa before being elected President of the nation that imprisoned him – gets his Hollywood biopic thrown in with a sports movie? Are you trying to tell me his story wasn’t quite inspirational enough?

Worst of all, Invictus isn’t even a good sports film. Like the pseudo biopic on Mandela, the rugby half is both shallow and generic, qualities echoed by the horrendously mawkish theme song ‘Colorblind’ that is enough to make Invictus seem like a parody of an inspirational film.  It’s hard to believe that the man responsible for this unmitigated disaster is none other than American film icon Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino).

Loosely based on John Carlin’s book ‘Playing the Enemy’, the film tells of how the South African rugby team, the Springboks, embarked on a seemingly impossible quest to win the 1995 Rugby World Cup in a hope that it will unite a divided nation. Mandela (Morgan Freeman, of course) believed that the racial tensions left over from the apartheid could be dissolved if both blacks and whites were to support the Springboks, a team whose colours, players and fans symbolised past discrimination against blacks. It’s therefore up to Springboks’ captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) to turn his poorly performing side into a team of champions.

Even though Invictus drags on for over two hours, don’t expect to learn anything profound about Mandela or Pienaar. Anthony Peckham’s tortuous screenplay makes it abundantly clear that this movie is less about anyone in particular and more about an entire nation.  It’s about South Africa’s ability to reconcile. A worthy subject indeed, but one that is handled far too superficially by Eastwood’s uncharacteristically heavy hand to make any kind of sincere, lasting impact.

Essentially, the film suggests that the multifaceted socio-political issues that had plagued South Africa for decades were resolved by a game of rugby.  That blacks and whites suddenly became best buddies because they both barracked for the same team.  And, most reprehensibly, that Nelson Mandela did little more as President than show up at each game to shake hands with the players. The film is so blinkered in that regard, it’s almost defamatory.

It’s a shame because Morgan Freeman’s strong performance as Mandela reminds us of what an excellent biopic this could have been. Not only is his physical likeness is uncanny, Freeman nails Mandela’s wise and gentle demeanour. You feel at peace just watching him. Yet he is cast aside for the second half of the film so that Matt Damon’s insipid, undeveloped character can run head first into other male bimbos on the rugby field. Consequently, Freeman’s performance has been limited to showing just one side of Mandela, that being his legendary public persona, where every utterance appears to have come straight out of an inspirational quote book (“I have a very large family; 42 million”, says Mandela when asked about his family, a missed opportunity to delve into the man’s private life).  Perhaps if Freeman was given another dimension of Mandela’s character to work with, he might have finally had his day at the Oscars. Not to be.

The last twenty minutes of Invictus are reserved entirely for the big game — Mandela now reduced to a cheerleader in the stands — and it was during this uninvolving finale that I seriously started to question where the Clint Eastwood of great films such as Unforgiven and Mystic River had gone. So many edits are made on action during this sloppy sequence that we rely solely on cutaway shots of the scoreboard to get any idea of what’s going on. And just when you think the film couldn’t possibly be any more overbearing, the last five minutes take place entirely in slow motion so that each garish reaction shot of that on-the-siren goal is a little more gag-inducive than the last.

So let’s start with the predictably predictable plot.  A New Yorker couple, estranged after an account of infidelity – and no surprises as to who violated their wedding vows, find themselves in a rut. Lawyer Paul Morgan (Hugh Grant) is desperately trying to win back his sunny real-estate mogul Meryl (Sarah Jessica Parker).  After a begrudging dinner the two find themselves the witnesses to a murder, placed on witness protection and shipped off to Wyoming in the protective custody of the horse-shoe-throwing county sheriff Clay Wheeler (Sam Elliot) and his pro-gun-anti-vegetarian wife/deputy sheriff Emma (Mary Steenburger).  Tempers flare and relationships are reforged. Blah blah blah.  You know the ending before you even make it through the first 20 minutes – but I suppose that’s the crux of any rom-com.

Sometimes, weak plots can be salvaged by some very well written characters.  This film is not one of those sometimes.  The characters are Styrofoam and tremendously boring to watch.  From a kindly but near mute sherrif to the intellectually handicapped nurse/doctor duo, this film leaves much to be wanted.  Sarah Jessica Parker (Sex in the City) can normally be depended upon for her deliciously rumbustious curls and timely delivery of punchlines.  In this film, everything about her is flat; hair, dialogue, quirk-o-meter reading.  Everything!  Admittedly, the chemistry between Grant and SJP was passable, but they seemed from like bed-buddies than a real couple.  Essentially, the film and its characters were fake.  And not even cleverly fake. It was as if the writer (Marc Lawrence) ran out of Ritalin and was writing to meet a deadline.  The same could be said for the music and camera work.  There was no innovation or attempts to stamp on clichés.  If anything, cliché was the staple of the entire film.

My advice? Watch the preview.  It’s got pretty much all the best bits (humour, Hugh Grant with sexy-uber-textured hair, and grizzly bears) and you don’t need to sit through the agonizing hours of clichéd banter (if it even deserves such a title) and blandness.  And to all the romantics out there, please don’t amass outside my house with pitchforks and torches.  I don’t entirely dislike rom-coms (I happened to highly prize Bridget Jones and all her chimney-pot smoking and simultaneous attempts to wax lower appendages).  But this movie, is plain crass.

[rating: 1.5/5]

A sharp chiaroscuro of bright white and dark shadows, Abbie Cornish with persistently tear-stained cheeks and an intense polarisation between the personalities of the Poet John Keats (Ben Wishaw) and his muse Fanny Brawne, adds an interesting twist to the age-old tale of doomed lovers which is fathomed between the shifting seasons of three, nineteenth century years. Keats himself enters the picture as a quasi successful poet, twenty three years of age and still wasting away his days aspiring to be a wordsmith of worth. Beside him in misery and artistic angst is his best friend Charles Armitage Brown, played with the perfect mix of wit and arrogance by Paul Schneider of Lars and the Real Girl fame. As the two gentlemen become acquainted with their neighbours, the Brawnes, eldest daughter Fanny takes a fancy to Keats; whose starving artist chic, belief in his own “negative capability”, two brooding eyes and a clever manipulation of the english language could only be compared with what we in contemporary society have come to know as “Emo”. Que the swoon and collective dreamy sighs from ladies everywhere…

From the get go, Campion promises a film told through subtleties. Like poetry itself, this film presents as a puzzle of words, and what we read between and in the absence of them. While Brown gleefully tries to own Ms. Brawne with his performance making mockery of her disdain for learning the value of poetry and her job as a do-it-yourself seamstress each and every time they meet, Keats is a lot slower to respond to the woman at hand. Effectively, he dangles a carrot to make her chase him and then gets angry when she so much as holds conversation with another male.  To make up for this, he later showers Brawne with forest walks, deep love letters and a commitment ring.

A love and mutual respect between the pair grows slowly but surely, and their differences come to compliment their individual views of their world. Most disappointingly, Keats declines to fully commit to Fanny Brawne by avoiding a real job: in paraphrase of this film, using the excuse “but I’m an artist and so I have no money to marry you” is one that many people could still use today, to keep as an effective get-out-of-jail-free-card. In resolution of this film, I was left considering the role of Karma inflicting itself upon Keats – perhaps the TB wouldn’t have killed him if he had just manned up, got a real job and treated his lady the way he kept promising her he would. But that outcome would not have been quite so tragically or poignantly romantic now would it?

Abbie Cornish dominates this film early, even without any of the blonde sass Australian audiences have come to equate her with. Campion has offered the young actress a role that is both challenging and deep, affording a brunette Cornish the room to flex her real acting talent without having to fall back on sex appeal to get her job done well. Despite the hysteria of her character  -a natural product of plot- Cornish holds herself well and relays the effects of shock and grief with ease. Given the cheerful nature of Fanny Brawne before she meets John Keats, it is much easier to be more sympathetic towards her and her loss of him rather than towards Keats and his loss of life. This is also accentuated by the fact that he leaves her because his friends “make” him travel to Italy and also, through the modern realisation that most great poets only get famous posthumous; therefore his death was not whole heartedly unexpected. It’s hard not to agree with the “we told you so” looks upon the faces of her family, after Keats messes her around far too many times concluding with his travels to Italy and his untimely death. While the smooth editing propels this story forward and an intricate use of mise-en-scene allow Campion to flesh out her world and the unique characters within, her rhythm is strikingly slow; whether to capitalise upon poignant moments with the clarity of stillness or not, the film sometimes lacks in charge as a result.

After scoring a nomination for the Golden Palm this year in Cannes, it would be easy to think that this film is an endearing and successful effort. Unfortunately this film is drawn out, particularly through the second act where many of Keats’ problems – financially or emotionally related -  could be solved if only he stopped brooding about being poor and uninspired and just got on with writing or something else. In some parts, this becomes borderline tedium to watch.

Verdict:

Another Campion classic, told with a natural elegance and beauty. Unfortunately it’s often predictable and boring, although the witty dynamics between Fanny Brawne and Charles Armitage Brown are genuinely funny.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/2-12-stars/bright-star-review/feed/ 0 http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/sherlock-holmes-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/sherlock-holmes-review/#comments Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:29:02 +0000 Katina Vangopoulos http://cutprintreview.com/?p=8797 Robert Downey Jr is a very busy man. He has a lot to uphold amongst his Hollywood comeback, first donning the Iron Man suit and now almost certainly entering a second franchise with one of fiction’s most beloved characters. It’s funny then that the character of Sherlock Holmes hasn’t been a favourite in cinema; the bumbling detective now has one of the most known falsely quoted lines in history. Sadly but rightly so, said line fails to actually be mentioned – but the 1800’s London setting gives Guy Ritchie the perfect opportunity to do what Guy Ritchie does best – show the gritty side of town with a bit of humour thrown in. More than a bit – this is his most family-friendly film to date. After all, it is a ‘blockbuster’.

You can bet he loved having Downey Jr in the boxing ring – a scene with the perfect chance to use a bit of the extreme slo-mo and off-colour tones – and prove the main man can hold his own. Ok, so it also shows a bit of what they did for entertainment and gives every fighter watching a strategy to winning with the perfect sequence of attack. But, this is just one way Ritchie shows Holmes’ knack for perfection, whose self-commentary is very intriguing in revealing the smarts of a detective who doesn’t present himself as all that flash. On the other hand the Holmes character also has many flaws, and it’s these that make him such a lovable guy. You can’t hate him for loving American criminal Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), or sabotaging Dr. John Watson’s (Jude Law) impending engagement because it’ll break up their crime-fighting team. He just wants everything as he wants it, doing what he does best with a friend by his side.

When the notorious enemy Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) returns from the dead and seeks revenge on Holmes (as well as continuing his murder spree), the detective finds himself in a bit of a pickle; when Lord Blackwood and a secret group are affiliated with authorities like the police, even more so. It’s a case of goodie and baddie chasing each other until they reach the climactic battle, and you find yourself with a general action plot. The more intriguing part of the Holmes story is his personal relationships – the bond with Watson, his pining love for Adler and the manipulation she can use on him and how easily he can switch between determined and defeated. Ritchie mixes it up so you’re taken on a slightly emotional ride, but always keeps it light with the humour. It’s serviced well by the great cast – Law impresses as Watson particularly but Downey Jr steals the show. He still seems to be fascinating even when he mumbles and has a lovable charm that rubs off extremely well. Ritchie’s direction keeps you hooked, particularly those slo-mo sequences displaying the thought process of the main man. It manages to maintain an introductory feel but still provide laughs and a good adventure. Sherlock Holmes is all about the camaraderie; there’s nothing overly dark to read between the lines here. It’s a good example of a (dysfunctional but) working friendship and good faith amidst the criminal world of their time.

Verdict

Sherlock Holmes has something for everybody; an accessible film is perhaps exactly what Guy Ritchie’s been looking for.

[Rating: 3.5/5]