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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The story opens with a flashback to a fiercely competitive childhood basketball game – a buzzer beating play cements the friendship between teammates and their respect for an aging, clichéd Coach. Cutting to present day and thirty years later, the team reunite under emotional circumstances, the hometown funeral for their old Coach becomes the proving ground for the men each has grown into. Hilariously, the team are reconstructed in a reunion sequence; Sandler as Lenny, and über successful casting agent who pulls the strings of the likes of Angelina and Brad. Kevin James as Eric, who appears to be a successful business man with more to love, especially around his middle. Chris Rock as Kurt, a househusband tired of taking crap from his wife while she makes the babies and the money. Rob Schneider as a sensitive, new age hippy who is openly in love with his third wife, aged approximately seventy. And lastly David Spade, as Marcus the oversexed drunkard; the most unlikely love rat ever to grace a silver screen. As the old team come together again for the American Independence day long-weekend, the dynamics of their friendship group reveals itself in manifestations of playful ganging up on the weakest character at any one time, and a tendency to never let a good joke die.

The screenplay, while lacking in originality, is well structured enough to let many of the strongest jokes resurface, allowing their friendship to be believable. Of course this element could also come from the fact that the actors here go way back,  from stints together as freshmen on SNL through to nearly every movie ever produced by or affiliated with Sandler’s production company HappyMadison. While the previews do them no justice, the posse of wives provides an influential amount of the humour, with Salma Hayek, Maya Bello, Maya Rudolph and an elderly Joyce Van Pattern provoking the personalities of their husbands tirelessly. Family dilemmas are also central to the plot, with Lenny trying to raise men from sons addicted to money, computer games, fashion and texting their nanny for even the simplest of things. Eric’s predicament as a fat dad with a fat daughter is gold, although his four year old son’s obsession with breast-feeding is gross and not funny. As the men meet the state of their lives with anxiety, denial and a whole lot of veritable laughs, it is the generational differences between parents and kids that provides the necessary heartstring tugs essential to any Adam Sandler film. In teaching his kids about life, Lenny shows his little winners what it is like to lose in a sequence that reverses all of Sandler’s other third act outcomes. It is both refreshing and well acted to prove the climactic change in his kids and to preserve the intention of the story – being a “Grown Up” is a big deal, but there is always still room for the kid at heart.

Grown Ups is the cinematic embodiment of Adam Sandler’s filmmaking journey. From his beginnings as a comedian through to the household name he is today, Adam Sandler’s ability to act, write and produce some of the funniest moments in nineties cinema is given a respectful bookend by Grown Ups. Although not as classic as his roles as Billy, Happy or even Bobby, Lenny feels like a careful evolution of Sandler’s comedic style. Now Happy Madison fans will be asking what is next, and our faith in Adam Sandler’s proven work ethic is promise that there will be more films in store. However, getting back to the filmmaking golden roots of Big Daddy or Mr. Deeds may have to be put on hold until after the release of the upcoming Just Go With It, starring *gasp* Jennifer Aniston. This film may be overlooked by Toy Story 3 and Eclipse fans, but it is another satisfying Adam Sandler film that will surely have a big DVD following.

Verdict:

You won’t remember the characters’ names as it’s too easy to see only the actors portraying them, but their conflicts with family, friends and growing up will be easily recognised by anyone up for a good laugh.

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.

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 film follows Amos Oz as he travels from Israel to America and Europe giving talks on the issues of Nationalism, Racism, Peace and Fear. Early on, we see him at a function at the UN in New York, where his status becomes clear to the uninitiated, mixing with the likes of Salman Rushdie and President Shimon Peres (of Israel). Although he is renowned, Amos Oz is controversial, with the film describing him as an enemy of the left and right wing. His perspectives are set in a poetic sense of logic and human understanding. It really is quite interesting to hear his opinions, contradicting the stereotypes in such an eloquent fashion.

Many scenes in the film are quite engaging, such as the function at the UN, where Oz asks President Shimon to alter his speech in response to Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s prior address. Another excellent scene sees Oz discussing Jerusalem’s future with the holy city as a backdrop. Oz provides very succinct and well phrased arguments against the extreme points of view held by proponents of the conflict. He also explains why the situation with Israel and Palestine is so deadlocked and what both sides should do to resolve this complex situation. To the initiated, these are profound, but to anyone seeking an education on the history of the conflict, look else ware.

The lack of definition in the film is disappointing, with such a great person to portray in a documentary it is a shame that the filmmakers went with assuming the audience’s knowledge, because it will fail to spark interest in the topic amongst the general population. At just under 90 minutes, Amos Oz: The Nature of Dreams struggles to explain a lot of what Oz discusses with substantial background information. It’s a minor flaw for anyone who understands the basic history of Israel, but I do wish documentaries wouldn’t narrow their potential audience in this way.

There are also some technical flaws in this documentary, which make it slightly uncomfortable to watch unless you have a particularly well trained eye. One is the uneven translation of the foreign languages into awkward subtitles. Occasionally, translations will flash only momentarily, making sentences almost illegible. Additionally, the subtitle design seems flawed, with moments of clashing between the text and the footage. No doubt the film was fairly low budget as the quality feels like standard definition and hasn’t been converted to the big screen particularly well, so you can forgive the technical woes on this basis alone. However, those who find design flaws irritating may have to concentrate a little harder.

I don’t wish to spoil too much of what is discussed in this documentary, but fans of Oz will surely find it a treat. Unknown to me at the beginning of the film, I feel grateful to have been introduced to such an insightful figure. If you have a particular view of the situation in Israel, this film should give you something to think about. If you don’t know why Israel and Palestine are so contentious, I suggest you do a little reading before you see this film because the issue is an excellent lesson in the confusion of passion for logic. Amos Oz: The Nature of Dreams will leave you thinking, if nothing else, just make sure you’re familiar with Israel and modern history before delving into the world of Amos Oz, this bold thinker.

Verdict:

Despite some technical flaws and required knowledge, Amos Oz: The Nature of Dreams is an insightful documentary and should be seen by anyone with a moderate interest in Israel’s current political situation.

Set within a year of the events that began World War I, The White Ribbon is about a small German village that contracts a very suspicious series of events. When the resident Doctor has a serious horse accident, the village begins to wonder who set the wire to trip him and why? It is not until the death of a farmer’s wife and the torture of the Baron’s son, do the events start to seriously concern the villagers, particularly the school teacher (played by Christian Friedel). However, these mysterious crimes are not the complete focus of the film, rather the catalyst for exposing the flaws, problems and conflicts of the various townsfolk.

The school teacher plans to marry one of the young nanny’s to the Baron’s children, Eva, despite being quite older himself. The Baron’s relationship with his wife is stretched by the torture of his youngest son and the discontent amongst the village tenants. The town midwife is dealing with inadequacy as the Doctor’s physical attraction to her wanes, while her own son suffers from a mental disability. Meanwhile, the children of the town’s priest must deal with constant moral policing by their father (the oldest two forced to wear white ribbons to remind them of their purity). These interwoven stories create the film’s best feature, a very interesting picture of life, society and drama in the pre-war era of countryside Germany.

This film is unconventional, but it remains interesting and dramatic enough throughout the lengthy two and a half hours. Unfortunately this is marred by a rather unsatisfactory ending; viewers will be able to conclude things for themselves but the film doesn’t go out of the way to tie things up. Adding to the mystery of the film, The White Ribbon plays the subtext card often. It isn’t what is said or shown that matters, but rather what isn’t, for the most part.

The cinematography is excellent because it complements the style of drama and storytelling in the movie perfectly. Filmed in black and white, the camera remains static and observant much of the time, with shots carefully composed to reveal and obscure the action within the frame. Movement is also very deliberate and fluid, which pulls the viewer along nicely. The lack of distracting colour not only adds to the simplicity of the world, but shows off the strong, natural expression in the actors’ faces, especially the children, who feature prominently.

The sound design is equally as effective in minimising distraction and providing a kind of stillness. Sound effects and diegetic music take precedent over any sort of score in the film, which again perpetuates the quiet feel. This tone is consistent throughout and is definitely successful in making you feel observant, rather than active in the picture.

Presuming Michael Haneke wasn’t trying to make the next mainstream thriller, The White Ribbon is successful in its intent. If you have the patience for the subject matter, you might enjoy this rather different pace of film. Unfortunately, many viewers may find themselves frustrated at times for the same reason. I must admit I felt this at points during the picture, but that has not completely stopped me from appreciating the clarity of vision and style of this social portrait.

Verdict:
The White Ribbon is not for everyone, but those with the patience to see its entirety will experience a unique window into the world of the German pre-war village; complete with social conflict, mystery and lots of subtext.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/the-white-ribbon-review/feed/ 0 http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/wall-street-dvd-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/wall-street-dvd-review/#comments Tue, 06 Apr 2010 04:04:14 +0000 Glynn Morgan http://cutprintreview.com/?p=10096

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]

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]

That’s the mentality French writer/producer Luc Besson must swear by, if going by his back catalogue of supremely stupid, but undeniably exhilarating action movies such as The Transporter, Kiss of the Dragon and Taken. In other words, he specialises in making the kind of movies you don’t ever admit to enjoying.

Rip open From Paris With Love, the latest delivery from the Besson canon, and you’ll discover a film scarcely strung together by a shamelessly stereotypical terrorist plot and armed to the teeth with more action movie clichés than a Steven Seagal show reel. Yep, it has ‘guilty pleasure’ stamped all over it.

But Besson — who produced the film and co-wrote the screenplay with Adi Hasak (Shadow Conspiracy) — doesn’t deserve all the credit. You’d best thank director Pierre Morel (Taken,  Unleashed) for successfully walking that fine line between explosive dumb fun and just plain ol’ dumb. Just as he did with Taken, Morel captures the action with the kind of style and intensity rarely seen in the age of shaky cameras and twitch edits. He also draws fiery, charismatic performances from his leads, which in this case is John Travolta as the utterly bonkers, utterly entertaining special agent Wax.

Before Travolta gets a chance to steal the show, Jonathan Rhys Meyers sets the mood as James Reece, an aide to the US ambassador in Paris. On the side, however, he’s a low-level agent for an American intelligence agency, living a luxurious life with his gorgeous French girlfriend Caroline (Kasia Smutniak). Desperate to see some real spy action, James gets his big break when he’s partnered with the agency’s best operative, Charlie Wax.  What his handler fails to tell him is that Wax is possibly the most insane, reckless and fowl-mouthed agent on the planet.

For the sake of a witty punch line, I wouldn’t be surprised if Wax – who comes complete with his own catch phrase “wax on, wax off” – was from the same agency as Vin Diesel’s xXx. Both are consistently a close shave away from certain death, yet still manage to drop 10 gun wielding goons without a single drop of sweat forming on their shiny, bald heads.  That said, Travolta’s performance has much more bad-ass pizzazz than Diesel’s, the result of Die Hard’s John McClane (Bruce Willis) being thrown in a blender with Pulp Fiction’s Jules Winnfield (Samuel L. Jackson), a character Travolta is well acquainted with. As it turns out, Wax also has a hankering for a Royale with Cheese.

Counteracting Travolta’s dynamism, Rhys Meyers plays it much straighter as James, which is necessary in keeping an ounce of humanity intact. The Irish actor/model holds his own during the action sequences, but when it comes time to delivering serious dialogue (not often), he has an odd tendency to enunciate words like a contestant on Wheel of Fortune.

Back to the *ahem* plot; the oddball duo find themselves at the tip of a bizarrely interconnected  criminal conspiracy that works its way through a number of racial stereotypes before  pinning it on the root of all cinematic evil, Islamic extremists. Ultimately though, the story is just as expendable as the infinite number of ditzy bad guys, all of whom are in desperate need of some shooting lessons. The zany action set pieces all transpire in Paris, but you wouldn’t know that if it wasn’t for the fleeting cutaway shots of the Eiffel tower and a peppering of French accents.  Remove these and the film may as well have been titled ‘From a generic city in Europe…with Love’.

As with all of Besson’s films, enjoying From Paris With Love requires letting your better sense be taken hostage for around 90 frenetic minutes.  If you can do that,  you’ll be swept up by a capably directed, entertainingly performed homage to the action movies of the 80s and 90s, a time where “motherf***er” became Hollywood’s favourite adjective.

Verdict:

You get exactly what you pay for with From Paris With Love, and that’s plenty of bang for your buck.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/from-paris-with-love-review/feed/ 1 http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/valentines-day-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/valentines-day-review/#comments Sun, 14 Feb 2010 06:56:54 +0000 Amelia Talbot http://cutprintreview.com/?p=9427 The interrelation between a group of people and the happenings for them on this marketing and consumer bonanza of a day tie a complicated knot, untangled throughout an entertaining romantic comedy.

Valentine’s Day involves a cleverly constructed plot, using simple but relatable life situations including adultery, virginity, single life, work, sexuality, national service and how can we forget, love. It’s a wonder how all of these themes are engaged without an equally busy screenplay, but a casual ‘fly on the wall’ approach gives the viewer the chance to look in on the excitement.

Ashton Kutcher’s sweet and loveable character manages busy inner city florist Sienna Bouquet. His and Jennifer Garners’ character friendship forms around the florists business for the day and the basis for the sequential fateful events to expand. Quite a condensing of topics means none are delved into in great detail, but for a light hearted movie, it’s a welcome attribute as it allows things to move along at a sustainable pace.

The appeal of such a large ensemble ensures the viewers attention due to variety and recognition. Valentine’s Day could be likened to the similarly star-studded Love Actually, but it bears that American shine that sparkles from atop the Los Angeles hills Hollywood sign.

Possibly not the kind of movie your typical action, thriller patron would attend, but with such a broad range of topics involved may locate an empathetic spot. Surprisingly, the film caters to singles as it explores how they deal with the saturation of love enforced on this day, and it is in the honest treatment of those in loving relationships that make them all the more believable. Having the appeal to draw in both couples and singles widens the film’s target audience and will help it succeed at the box office.

Verdict:

A fun, easy-going film with a certain cheesy charm, which as its title claims, simply recounts the events that occur one Valentine’s Day.

Fair enough, too. Precious is a morbidly obese, illiterate and pregnant African-American teen living in 1987 Harlem, surviving off the welfare collected by her disgustingly abusive mother. On occasion, her drug-addicted father drops in to rape her.  He is also the father of both her children, the first of whom has Down Syndrome. If there were a checklist of all the issues a teenager could possibly have, it’s safe to say poor Precious would tick each and every box.

“But guess what…” snaps Precious in response to her earlier sentiment. “F*** that other day. That’s why God or whoever make new days.”

It’s this remarkably optimistic attitude present throughout Lee Daniels’ second feature (the first being 2005s Shadowboxer) that turns an otherwise bleak and traumatic take on the human condition  into a surprisingly uplifting drama. No matter what unimaginable hurdles Precious must face, hope for her is never lost.

But that’s not to say it doesn’t seriously dwindle. The uncompromising and unstructured nature of the story, which is based on the novel ‘Push’ by African-American poet/author Sapphire, does tend to make the 110 minute runtime feel much longer. It’s  perhaps a sign that Daniels has done too good a job at placing us in Precious’s torturous shoes, forcing us  to feel her every blow — the ridicule, the abuse, the loneliness — almost to the point where we, like Precious, long for an escape.

And escape we do. When reality becomes to tough to bare for the Harlem teen, we’re swept away to her “happy place”. Once there, cinematographer Andrew Dunn shifts from gritty hand-held to intentionally embellished glamour shots as Precious imagines herself as an adored celebrity, dancing alongside her gorgeous rocker boyfriend in front of a sea of camera flashes.  It’s one of few times newcomer Gabourey Sidibe — who impassively drifts through the movie as if desensitised to her character’s own deprivation — ever sports a smile. And it’s a beautiful sight.

Bringing Precious back down to Earth is her god-awful mother Mary (Mo’Nique), who only keeps her daughter around so she can continue receiving welfare checks and make her dinner. Powered by Mo’Nique’s vigorously vocal performance, Mary is nothing less than the spawn of the devil, hurling abuse at Precious with her every hateful breath. It’s not until a climactic scene set within the office of counselor Mrs. Weiss (Mariah Carey) that we see another side to Mary’s character, one that suggests she might actually have a soul after all. It’s a shame that it takes so long for this development to occur as Mo’Nique is truly brilliant at manipulating our emotions during this powerful scene – forcing us to ask whether she is genuinely remorseful, or just putting on a show – that you wish her character had a similar dynamic throughout the first two acts.

Hope for Precious comes in the form of special-ed teacher Ms. Rain (Paula Patton) who helps teach her how to read and write. Angelic in demeanour and appearance, Ms. Rain arrives like a walking cliché, embodying the role of the inspirational teacher we’ve seen many times before in films like Lean on Me and Dead Poets Society. It’s lucky, then, that Patton’s performance bears great sincerity and grace, bringing her character back into the realms of plausibility while still providing the film a warm ray of light.

Arriving in the wake of the awfully mawkish inspirational sport biopic Invictus and the overbearingly bleak post-apocalyptic drama The Road, Precious succeeds because it strikes a balance between the two emotional extremes. Oh yes, there will be tears, so bring the Kleenex. But there will also be smiles, as this stirring film suggests there’s still hope for us yet.

]]> http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/precious-based-on-the-novel-push-by-sapphire-review/feed/ 4 http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/in-the-loop-review/ http://cutprintreview.com/reviews/3-12-stars/in-the-loop-review/#comments Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:17:37 +0000 Katina Vangopoulos http://cutprintreview.com/?p=8681 It’s in the natural order to see politicians lead journalists and the public in circles. Their job serves as spin to make the public feel good about who is representing them, and they are excellent in making us feel that we need whatever they provide. At the time of writing Adelaide sets a good example with their stadium debate: two parties promising different versions of the same outcome. Many think it’s the greatest prospect for the city yet; others think the money could be spent elsewhere. Either way it’s happening and it all comes down to who we vote into power. Because it’s these people who call the shots. And whatever democratic government you’re looking at it’s the same principle. But when the stakes are much higher, communication is the most important key.

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 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]