The Losers (10/06/10) [Archive]

The Losers (2010)

Director - Sylvain White
Starring - Jeffery Dean Morgan, Zoe Saldana & Chris Evans

3.5 stars

The Losers epitomises the one thing that we go to the movies for; to be entertained. If you take nothing out of this movie, you are still sure to have spent a pretty amusing 97 minutes.

The story is based on a comic book series back in the day and is about a group of CIA black ops who are betrayed and presumed dead. Not ones to back down from a fight, they turn vigilante and set out to clear their names and get revenge on the bloke who set them up. After receiving help from a mysterious woman in Bolivia, they set the wheels into motion for their next attack.

Sound familiar? It is. In fact, there is no denying that it pretty much follows a very cliché approach to the whole Action/Comedy genre. That doesn’t matter because The Losers doesn’t try to be anything it’s not and thanks to an excellent cast, it remains refreshingly funny.

The group is led by Captain Clay (Jeffery Dean Morgan) and consist of tech man Jensen (Chris Evans), knife-wielding Roque (Idris Elba), long range shooter Cougar (Oscar Jaenada) and their versatile driver Pooch (Columbus Short). They are met by Aisha (Zoe Saldana), a woman wanted by almost every secret agency in the US and begin their plans to take down the man who got them into this mess, Max (Jason Patric).

As I said, this cast helps to lock up the success of this film. It’s fair to say that the group of ‘Losers’ definitely carries the narrative. The scenes without them are dull, boring and almost a little awkward and plain and simply have you waiting until they come back onto screen. Chris Evans stole the show for mine. His character Jensen kept the entire narrative energized and crisp and was just ridiculously funny. Evans never slipped out of character and his delivery on so many brilliant one liners was ever so memorable. The other characters complemented him brilliantly and I think the mix of personalities actually worked really well. They created this very compatible group of men who worked very well with each other and each actor slotted in perfectly to shore up that connection.

It would be remiss of me to talk about acting accolades and not mention my girl Zoe Saldana. The woman just oozes sex and her incredible hotness and body to die for just lift this movie to another notch. She also does play an important character and does it well. She is well cast and despite my chauvinistic sexualisation of her, she is a very talented actress. If I fell in love with her as Neytiri in Avatar, imagine how I feel now after watching her strut her stuff in human form!

What didn’t work, as I mentioned, were the scenes without the main group. These scenes mainly involved ‘the bad guys’ and their plots to stop ‘the good guys’. These scenes are necessary in action films so that the narrative can progress and the audience can actually understand what is happening. What didn’t work for me was how these scenes panned out. Max, the chief ‘bad guy’ was an awful character. Not awful because of his crude actions, he wasn’t well rounded, he wasn’t overly aggressive, he was awkward and he just didn’t work. I couldn’t stand him, and not in the same way I can’t stand the generic bad guys in other films. He wasn’t a well thought out character, was very hard to understand and worst of all, horribly played by Jason Patric. Combine this with the bunch of Indian nerds that he bullied and their ridiculous forced accents it became a recipe for disaster. It was attempted humour gone horrible wrong and this really took away from the film as a whole. Fortunately it had enough ammunition behind it to keep me plugged.

I had been waiting to see The Losers for some time and I’m glad I finally got around to doing it whilst it was still on at the cinemas. It was a very fun experience and I can’t honestly say it was an incredibly enjoyable journey. You don’t have to think too hard, you can just sit back and enjoy the ride. It’s all about that entertainment value I spoke about. I love a good drama, it’s the reason I want to get involved in the industry. There is nothing better than telling a good story. But its movies like this that make it clear for me that you still need the contrast. These action/comedies most certainly do have a place in the cinematic world. Would I want to see one every week? No. Will I rush back to see The Losers? Probably not, but I have no doubt I will own it on DVD someday. Still, they are essential films that are so good to see from time to time.

I really do recommend that you see it. It’s funny, it’s full of action, lots of shootings, killings, explosions… everything you expect to see, you see. If you aren’t sold on my rant about the entertainment value, go see this because of Chris Evans. He is dead-set brilliant and so damn funny.

The Back-Up Plan (22/05/10) [Archive]

The Back-Up Plan (2010)

Director - Alan Poul
Starring - Jennifer Lopez & Alex O'Loughlin

3 stars

Yeah, I saw it. And yeah, I gave it three stars. And of course, you aren’t surprised.

So anyone who knows me, or has met me for ten minutes, will know that I have a soft spot in my heart for a good chick flick. The Back Up Plan is the absoloute epitome of the genre. It literally felt like somebody had followed a formula for writing ‘The Perfect Chick Flick’ and come out with an incredibly cliche’ result.

In short, The Back Up Plan is about Zoe (Jennifer Lopez), a single woman who wants a baby. With age creeping up on her she does the logical thing to do for a woman in her position – she finds a sperm donor. On the day of her insemination she meets a man. She dates this man. She falls in love with this man. During this blossoming romance, she finds out that the insemination has been successful and there is a baby on the way. Now it’s just a case of whether Stan (Alex O’Loughlin) wants to stick around.

What I did like about this more adult type chick flick was the two leads and their on-screen chemistry. JLo was actually really impressive. She played a pretty sassy character and conveyed a lot of enjoyment on screen. This ensured that the movie always maintained that element of fun and laughter. I can’t say I’ve ever really thought of JLo is a standout actor (although I did thoroughly enjoy Maid in Manhattan) and I’m still not saying that she is Oscar material, but in this genre, she ticks all the boxes. As for her male counterpart, Alex O’Loughlin, he worked very well with her. Not being aware of his previous work (although since the movie I have found out he is a home-grown Aussie) I had no preconceived expectations. This is probably a good move by the casting managers because he does play that ‘mysterious new guy’ who just pops up in the life of their starring girl. Why not make him virtually unknown? It worked for me.

I’ll keep it brief because there aren’t many hidden secrets to this one. If you are sucker for a good chick flick, you are sure to enjoy this one. It doesn’t pretend to be anything it isn’t. It’s got a solid cast and the typical ups and downs in emotion that you are sure to expect. It’s easy to watch (except for a horribly disgusting birthing scene that I know for a fact I did not have to see EVER in my life) and follow as well as having a pretty fun and exciting overall feel.

I Love You Too (11/05/10) [Archive]

I Love You Too (2010)

Director - Daina Reid
Starring - Brendan Cowell, Peter Dinklage, Yvonne Strahovski

4 stars

How refreshing is it to hear about an Australian film that doesn’t focus on a niche market or isn’t located in outback and focusing on families in the lower class of society! People overseas probably don’t realise that us Aussies do actually live in affluence if they were to base their opinions on the few movies that actually make it to the big screen. Fortunately, the narrative structure for ‘I Love You Too’ is entirely universal. With that said, the characters are uniquely Australian (well, the ones that are Australian!) and this provides a glowing sense of patriotism. All in all it’s a fantastic (Aussie!) film about love, heartbreak and finding out about whom you really are when dealing with it all.

The story follows the relationship between Jim (Brendan Cowell) and his English girlfriend for the past three years, Alice (Yvonne Strahovski). Jim, 33, is happy with how his life is right now. He is comfortable living in the bungalow out the back of his sister’s house, working at the largest miniature train track in the southern hemisphere and the way things are going in his relationship with Alice. Alice, on the flip side, wants more. Although she has marriage on her mind and desperately wants Jim to grow up and live more of an adult lifestyle, the thing that is pushing her to boiling point is the fact that her boyfriend of three years is still yet to tell her that he loves her. When Jim gives her a commitment ring on his birthday, the shit really hits the fan. They break up, and after a drunken binge, Jim ends up bumping into a stranger that may end up helping him find the answers to it all.

In a story so heavily focused on its characters, it was invigorating to find out that not only were they all well developed and filled out, they were also played to perfection. Being an Australian film I will endeavour to give my three votes, Brownlow Medal styles, for best afield.
- One Vote -Bridie Carter. Carter played Jim’s older sister, Marie. She is such a deep and passionate actress with the grand ability to portray about 1000 emotions in just one facial expression. She is a class act, and did such an amazing job capturing her character with a raw ability that made her so believable.
- Two Votes - Brendan Cowell. The main man. For a movie to have any sort of success, especially one so heavily based on characters and their interaction, it is imperative for the lead to tick all the boxes. I found Cowell’s character Jim a little bit hard to follow early on but the consistency in his personality really came to show as time went on and it was impossible not to really feel every step of his development throughout. Job well done.
- Three Votes -Peter Dinklage. It only hurts mildly to give the best on ground honours in a cast of home grown talent to a Yank but when you watch the movie, you will know why. Dinklage, better known as the midget from ‘Death at a Funeral’, absolutely steals the show as Charlie, the unsuspecting new friend of Jim who helps him on his quest to win back Alice. The film most definitely lifted a notch on Charlie’s inclusion and from that moment on he was controlling the narrative. A genuinely talented actor in his own right, Dinklage went a long way to supporting the overall success of the end product as his character was no doubt an incredibly important one.

Honourable mentions go to Strahovski, Megan Gale and the enjoyable cameo of Hamish Blake. Peter Helliar wasn’t great. He confirmed my initial thoughts of him as an actor when most of his comedic moments seemed forced and awkward. I think he’s brilliant when he’s not on the script but he does become stale when he needs to follow a bunch of lines. His dramatic scenes were far more natural than the humorous ones.

As for the film as a whole, it went down a similar format to Brendan Cowell’s performance. It started a little slow, but once the ball got rolling (and the inclusion of Dinklage) it worked brilliantly. It definitely had some comedic moments throughout, but it certainly wasn’t full of many laugh out loud moments. It was more of a light hearted drama with elements of a genuine rom-com.

It got me (like so many movies do) emotionally involved which I just love. I enjoyed going along the journey with the characters and although it contained elements of predictability, it didn’t spoil any of the entertainment level. At the end of the day, that is why we go to the movies… to be entertained.

And if it is for that reason alone, entertainment, go and see it. Even if you don’t enjoy the brilliant cast, incredibly in-depth and well thought out characters and rollercoaster ride of emotions, it is one of those films that can still keep you interested in it. Peter Helliar has written a stellar screenplay and should be applauded for it. 'I Love You Too' is a real winner and hopefully a true sign of things to come for Australian cinema!

Dear John (30/03/10) [Archive]

Dear John (2010)

Director - Lasse Hollstrom
Starring - Channing Tatum & Amanda Seyfried

3 stars

In its essence, Dear John is almost a war story about a young man's relationship with his father disguised as a soppy, romantic chick flick. As far as I was concerned, it was a must see, and don't act surprised because this had MJ written all over it!

It is based on the novel by Nicholas Sparks (author of The Notebook and A Walk To Remember) who is really making his mark in the cinema world due to his heartbreaking love stories. His work is now on such high demand that his latest movie, The Last Song, was an uncompleted novel from years ago that he forced to dust off because the studio just wanted something from him.

It's not hard to recognise Dear John as something that has come from Sparks. Young love, against all kinds of different circumstances, combined with a violent, bad boy past and some interesting relationships with other characters. It's all there for you to see. What is nice about the way his stories develop is the fact that sometimes these insurmountable odds they must fight against are simply that: insurmountable.

This particular movie is about the story between John Tyree (Channing Tatum) and Savannah Curtis (Amanda Seyfried) when they meet by chance on the beach. John has two weeks left back home until he is being shipped out again to fight for the US Army. Savannah is on her spring break type thing and has to return to school/college at around about the some time. Luckily for the couple, this is all the time they need to fall in love.

John's a quiet, yet proud young man who has had a violent past. Savannah just seems to get him for who he is and when she meets his autistic father for the first time and makes a great impression, John knows he has got himself a keeper. The problem now is how the pair can overcome the massive obstacles of going such a large stretch of time without seeing one another, and with the September 11 bombings just around the corner, John doesn't know how much longer he will be away from the girl he loves. To counter act this, they vow to keep in contact by writing letters to one another telling their better half everything. As the title so romantically suggests, Savannah begins each of her letters with, "Dear John".

There is a lot more to this film then just a long distance relationship that is put to the test. As I said earlier, a lot of this story, for me, was about John's relationship with his father. Although it is clear that John has always loved him, there is no doubt he is somewhat embarrassed and frustrated by many aspects of him. It is the inclusion of Savannah that makes John change the way he see's him and this acts as probably the most pivotal and emotional avenue for character development that highlights the film.

My major qualm with Dear John was its inability to connect with the audience on a more sentimental level. It was chock full of big emotional scenes that were supposed to draw in the viewer and tug tightly on their heart strings. For me, I just couldn't quite feel it. Being a lover of a decent chick flick and a massive fan of the romance genre I was all prepared to jump straight in and be captured by the passion but on more than one occasion it failed to deliver. Not one tear was shed from my eye when the potential for a downfall was never far away.

Channing Tatum was good, and I am quite a fan of his work. He has been criticised in the past for being stale and wooden but I think he is quite often type cast to play those sort of roles. I firmly believe that John was by far the most complicated character throughout the film and I think Tatum captured that brilliantly in his body language and facial expressions because it was hard for him to portray through dialogue. Job well done.

All in all, it's a nice film. The story is solid, the relationships are pivotal, the romance is evident and the acting is acceptable. There probably could have been more done in order to capture to emotion more but they then have to walk the tightrope of corniness. If you're a fan of these types of films then you won't be disappointed, just don't expect anything groundbreaking.

Brothers (21/03/10) [Archive]

Brothers (2009)

Director - Jim Sheridan
Starring - Jake Gyllenhaal, Natalie Portman & Tobey Maguire

4.5 stars

I knew it was going to be good, but just how good I wasn't sure. 'Brothers' is a relatively unknown film that hasn't received a heap of exposure but almost every review I have read has given it quite a positive remark.

The movie is about Tommy Cahill (Jake Gyllenhaal), his brother Sam Cahill (Tobey Maguire), and Sam's wife Grace (Natalie Portman) and daughters Isabelle and Maggie (Bailee Madison and Taylor Geare). Tommy has just come out of prison and although Grace hasn't been a fan of her brother in-law, Sam is keen to bring him back into their lives. As fate would have it, Sam has been flown out to Afghanistan as part of the army leaving his family back home. During his time there, his chopper get's mowed down and there are no survivors reported from the crash. Grace takes the news hard and Tommy takes it upon himself to support her and the children. Before too long, a strong bond is formed between both Tommy and Grace, and Isabelle and Maggie with their uncle. Although being reported dead, Sam actually survived the crash and after months of horrid torture, gets rescued and returned home. Unfortunately, the torment he endured has changed him completely and his psychological insecurities appear to rock everyone's world.

Brothers is a brilliantly directed remake of a 2004 Danish film by the same title. It's a film that dives into so many touchy issues and deals with them in ways that pays them absoloute justice. At its essence, it is a war film that concentrates heavily on post traumatic stress after coming home. What Sam has to deal with is truly incredible, and any sane man would be changed for the experience. What Brothers does so well as it also focuses on how such an experience can affect loved ones of those directly involved. The way it works through these concerns is so clever and meticulous and it allows each character's extraordinary behaviour to be fully justified and understand.

The cast was mind blowing. Portman played the confused, grieving wife well and Maguire's performance of the war-tortured husband and father was applaudable and believable. But unsurprisingly so, it was Gyllenhaal for me that stole this show. They say that a picture tells 1000 words and Jake Gyllenhaal has this amazing ability to explain any significant mood change in a single look. This was his best performance since Brokeback Mountain and his initially troubled character who transforms into the unsuspecting family man is the glue that holds together this brilliant ensemble.

11 year old Bailee Madison is a revelation. Never before have I been so encapsulated with a child actor. Her facial expressions were incredibly moving as you genuinely felt every emotion that her character, Isabelle, was feeling. Isabelle was a crucial character who always seemed to reflect the overall mood of the narrative. Had this have been a sub-par performance from Madison, the film would have suffered incredibly overall. A truly professional performance from this pint sized star.

Don't get me wrong, this is a very heavy movie. It maintains a very intense feel almost throughout its entirety which is more than understandable when you take into account what it's really dealing with. It is stacked with emotionally gripping conflict scenes that you simply can't take your eyes off. You are so often unsure what is going to happen next and due to the rapid, but warranted character development from all of them, so many possibilities are available.

It is a gripping movie and quite a full experience. You'll be sure to take a few deep breaths upon it's completion. I absolutely loved it and thought it so accurately captured such a realistic, traumatic series of events. It is an emotional journey that encapsulates everything about making a drama. Fuelled by an A+ effort from it's incredible cast, a beautifully thoughtful directing job and it's ability to appeal so closely to your heart, Brothers is a genuine must see that will leave breath taken.

Shutter Island (18/02/10) [Archive]

Shutter Island (2010)

Director - Martin Scorsese
Starring - Leonardo DiCaprio, Emily Mortimer & Mark Ruffolo

2.5 stars

*WARNING - SPOILER ALERT*

Of my 40 odd movie reviews that I've written, I've never once put up a spoiler alert. The main reason being, I like to try and sell the movie, let people know what I thought of it and give you enough knowledge of it so that you can decide for yourself whether you want to fork out your hard-earned to see it. So why change, MJ?

Shutter Island is a massive Hollywood blockbuster that has been floating around for the best part of 3 months. Pushed back in its initial release date (much to the disgust of lead man Leonardo DiCaprio) by it's production company, this Scorsese psychological thriller was making headlines because it was no longer going to be available for nomination at the Oscars. Now in February, it has enjoyed a healthy advertising campaign and media run and has enjoyed some sparkling reviews from people whose opinions are supposed to matter. So often in my life as a film watcher (classy title, I know) I like what I am supposed to like. Give me the big Hollywood film of the summer and I will eat it up for breakfast and rave to the world about the magic that I have just seen. On this occasion, on Shutter Island, I simply cannot conform.

So for those unaware, the film, set in 1954, follows US Marshal Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and his partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) as they are sent to Shutter Island, an isolated mental institution for the criminally insane, to track down the disappearance of a missing patient/prisoner. Upon arrival they meet the man in charge, Dr Cawley, and find him all too secretive and unwilling to provide him with the information they require. After a while they discover that almost everyone on the island, doctors, wards and even patients aren't keen to speak and the Marshal's realise that there is more going on then they can ever begin to imagine. Their only problem now is whether they will actually be able to get off the island before it's too late.

Seems like a solid plot, and to be honest, it is. It has all the right ingredients for cinematic entertainment and when you throw in names like Scorsese and DiCaprio you are sure to sell tickets. Unfortunately, it seems to offer so much more than it actually does. This can be a danger of a film that enjoys such a profitable pre-release period. Expectations are made and so often left unfulfilled. For me, I had high hopes. I had no reason not to. But by the last half hour or so, I was praying like mad that it would take another twist and blow me off my seat.

It did not.

So this is where the spoilers come in. Any psychological thriller based at a mental asylum where the head detective has hallucinations is going to have the audience asking questions. Is this Marshal actually one of the patients here and we are following one of their journeys as they trip out? If that thought didn't enter your head, then great, enjoy your movie. But for me, shit, that's probably the first conclusion I came up with once I watched the trailer. So when you're watching a film, already well aware of the 'twist' that is supposed to blow the socks of everyone you can't help but feel a little cheated when you eventually realise that there is nothing more to it. You've jumped the gun, and you hate yourself for it - I can only assume that this was how Jim felt in American Pie when he was in his bedroom with Nadia, only to a lesser extent I guess.

Another issue I had with the whole twist revelation was the way it was explained. For a good fifteen minutes Teddy/Andrew was systematically told how every piece of his adventure fit perfectly into the puzzle. It was almost like you had finished your DVD and put on the Director's commentary section just in case you had missed something in your initial viewing. Leigh Paatsch, film reviewer in the Herald Sun, so often sounds like a wanky, pompus moron when you read his stuff but he certainly nailed it here. For the first, and hopefully last time I will quote his view on matters... "All others lead to a BIG REVEAL so clumsily handled - yet pretentiously presented - you'd swear Scorsese sub-contracted this part of his directing job to a shonky M. Night Shyamalan". I couldn't have said it better myself, Mr Paatsch. Here's Martin Scorsese, one of the biggest names in the film world and most highly acclaimed director of a generation, getting it so wrong. Scorsese could sit himself on a toilet for two hours - or better still get DiCaprio to do it - and people would still be buying tickets to his movies, and rightly so because he has proven himself as a more than credible director.

I guess it comes with the territory. When you build yourself a reputation that accepts nothing more than excellence, those few times when you fail to reach the bar you will be critiqued. Fortunately for Scorsese and the Shutter Island crew, myself and Leigh Paatsch seem to be the minority, nay, the unheard voice.

For the rest of the film, there's not much more to report. It flowed well enough and answered all questions. No one will walk out of the movie thinking, 'I don't get it'. Obviously everything linked up and made sense, but that is expected when they took the better part of half an hour explaining how it happened, why he had the hallucinations, what role everyone played etc. Good twists don't need this form of meticulous explanation. Take Saw for example, with one minute to go Jigsaw gets up off the floor and walks out while a series of quick flashbacks dominant the screen leaving the audience in awe and excitement as they think 'OF COURSE!’ With Shutter Island, it was more a case of, 'oh yeah, oh yeah, yeah, that works'. Or for those who knew it all along, 'please God let there be another twist, fool everyone and give me the REAL twist!’ That's all it needed, in my honest opinion. It was the difference between 2 stars and 4 stars. I was praying for about 15 minutes that the audience was just being warmed up for the real twist that Teddy Daniels is no mental patient and we will kick some ass and get free. Alas, it wasn't to be.

DiCaprio was good without being and great, and like the film itself, probably wouldn't have troubled the Oscars punters too much had this movie been released when it was originally supposed to.

And that's the crux of it. This big name film, with its big name director and big name lead, has let me down. Expectations were high and left unfulfilled. It was cliché', it was predictable and it was by no means the groundbreaking movie I hoped to add to my hypothetical DVD collection of essential must-owns... but gee, it really could have been because it just offers so much more than it delivers.

Mao's Last Dancer (12/01/10) [Archive]

Mao's Last Dancer (2009)

Director - Bruce Beresford
Starring - Chi Cao & Bruce Greenwood

3.5 stars

I was (sadly) always going to have my critical hat on during the screening of this because I just loved the book so damn much. Never before have I been so encapsulated with 500 pages of the written word until I read Li Cunxin's autobiography, Mao's Last Dancer. I could not put it down.

Director Bruce Beresford had the unenviable task of adapting this 500-page life story spanning over 40 years, into a 2-hour feature film. It was never going to be a simple job, but he was aided with a greatest tool imaginable - a truly inspiring, emotionally gripping story, and as long he stayed true to that, he was never going to upset me.

So that's what went down for me. I applaud Beresford for his bleeding accuracy, flawless casting and finely tuned ability to capture the emotion at the correct times. He has done a wonderful effort but for me, the main issues with it were the things he left out. I know it's a cruel accusation because he still made a 2 hour and 7 minute film (any longer would have no doubt ensured this story would never have been made for the screen) but loving Cunxin's tale so much it has left me somewhat dissatisfied. Before I begin to nit-pick, I want to ensure that I have no condemnation for Bruce Beresford's work and have a lot of respect for the job he has done. But...

To truly understand the greatness of Li's story you have to appreciate what he went through back in his childhood and teenage years in Qingdao and Beijing. These years were skimmed over quickly (especially his childhood in the Chinese Province) but for me really set up what he is all about. The Chinese culture as a rule fascinates me. Understanding what Li and his family had to go through to make ends meet is quite unimaginable and it really does help to understand the man he becomes. The film, failing to acknowledge most of this, forces the audience to assume it.

A lot of the narrative does feel a bit rushed but still works. As I mentioned, it's a brilliant story - whether it be book, movie, radio or your grandma telling it to you - that can be enjoyed and appreciated in any medium.

The dancing scenes are quite fantastic. A lot of work went into the casting to find dancers who are competent enough to play the roles appropriately and hats off to everyone involved for making this so.

If you haven't read the book you are sure to enjoy this regardless. It's a story that has to be told and stories that must be told need to be heard. So take the time out to...just... listen... Take it in... and enjoy!

Avatar (24/12/09) [Archive]

Avatar (2009)

Director - James Cameron
Starring - Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana & Sigourney Weaver

4.5 stars

22/12/2009: I walked out of the Cinema Europa at Knox admitting that I had a just seen the best film of the year. Not a bad feat considering that the year only had about two weeks left in it. This small film ended up rocketing into the public eye before cleaning up at the Oscars. To this day, Slumdog Millionaire is still my favourite film.

Fast forward one year and two days and I'm feeling a sense of deja vu. Removing the classy 3D glasses off my nose with a smile abroad my face thinking, "wow this is familiar". I turned across to my colleague and repeated a line that I had used just 367 days earlier, "that's the best film I've seen all year", and I meant it.

So I went to see Avatar because I had to, didn't I? The most expensive made film in history combined with countless glowing reviews and sprinkled with an element of technology that was new to the cinematic world. Add in a side of 3D mixed with James Cameron and you have an un-missable dish of movie yummyness that was a must try for any film lover. With that said, I was always keen to check out this blockbuster from the day they released the 20 second trailer teaser.

Historically speaking I'm not a sci-fi guy (yeah, I know it rhymes) but for some reason, the magical world of Pandora and the ability for humans to become natives never really caused an issue for me. In fact, I never even questioned the legitimacy of it until someone brought it up at a later date and I thought, "oh yeah". So pretty much it's easy to say that I was lost in the movie's aura from ball one.

Ok, so here we are, five paragraphs in and you're thinking, "righto MJ, you've given this baby 4 and a half clicks and you're yet to really tell us why", and this is where I'm likely to let you down. The best movie I've seen in 2009 deserves the 4 and a half stars because I am yet to really find a problem with it. I mean, it's been two days since I've seen it and I still can't get it out of my head. The thought of reviewing it has kept me up at nights because I'm not too sure how I can possibly give it justice.

James Cameron is a genius. Creating this whole universe, world, creatures and way of life is an applaudable, imaginative effort but to combine it with such a powerful storyline and captivating plot is simply magical. Then to add the visual spectacle that has been so well documented, it really is an aesthetic pleasure, is something to marvel at. The magnitude of this movie is simply enormous and for all these reasons it is a genuine must-see.

Everything else I'm going to mention is so petty that you probably won't even care but it deserves the right to get a gig in my review. Sam Worthington is magnificent. I've been a big fan of this Aussie for some time but he has taken his status to a new level and will be knocking on the door of the A-list long room in no time. The running time of 2 hrs and 40 minutes is a genuine non-issue, in fact, anything shorter wouldn't have given it justice. Not once did I think it was dragging and as I said, I was entranced from the very beginning.

As I said, there's nothing I can really say to genuinely illustrate what I feel. I loved this movie, plain and simple. All I can add is that if you are going to see it (which you are) that you do it in style. Don't wait for DVD, and don't be stingy and go without the 3D experience. This requires the cinema atmosphere and as for 3D, well if you're going to do it, do it properly.

As for me, well I've kept my 3D glasses (apparently if you bring them with you then you pay less to watch it again - chick din for me) because I'd be more than happy to go another sesh. Mainly for the treat, but also to see whether this love for Zoe Saldana's Neytiri is genuine or just a sneaky crush on a seven foot blue alien. Time will tell.

Saw VI (25/10/09) [Archive]

Saw VI (2009)

Director - Kevin Greutert
Starring - Tobin Bell & Costas Mandylor

4 stars

It must be Halloween.
For the last six years, like clockwork, the general public is blessed with the latest edition of crude deaths and horrifying realisations and we all know that the Saw boys are at it again.

Six years ago I got my socks knocked off by a genuine classic. Saw revolutionised the horror genre will always be one of those films that can start a flurry of conversation. One year later they somehow replicated their brilliance and since then they have continued to maintain this standard with four more chapters of Jigsaw's work. It gets to the stage where I just can't wait until October.

Seeing a good movie is a funny thing. The end credits roll down the screen and I seem to be accompanied by a glistening smile on my lips. Whether it is a 'happy ending', a tragic journey or a Saw film, my reaction is the same - satisfaction. Last night I was initially disturbed at this discovery and thought to myself, "you sick bastard, as if you're smiling at that!" but I eventually discovered that I was displaying a mere appreciation for the cinema experience and my thought process was more along the lines, "well, they've done it again".

And that, for me, is the notion that I take from the Saw films. They've done it again. How the hell do they keep doing it so bloody well when every year we are bombarded with countless sub par horror flicks from the Hollywood world? How come all these writers and directors continuously make dozens of shit movies for every good one when the Saw boys are six for six? I'm getting to the stage now where I just don't concern myself with this conundrum and simply bask in the blinding light (or darkness?) that comes around every October.

With five films preceding it, it's hard not to have expectations before going to see Saw 6, but rest assured, these will be filled. Saw films have the tendency to gross out the viewer, make them think, throw in a number of twists and manage to link it all together. After a screening, audience members are often exhausted but don't feel at all cheated because they have witnessed another ripper.

The beauty of this film by itself is its brilliant ability to continue to draw back to the previous installments and ensure that everything that happens makes complete and utter sense. There are more than one, 'ohhh of course' moments throughout its entirety and certainly enough ammunition to impress. Jigsaw's games are back and as tough as ever but with John Kramer (aka the original Jigsaw) dying a few shows back, the police have the unenviable task of locating his imitator. When we see a familiar face come back onto the case we are relieved that maybe they will be on the right track this time but the process of capturing such a mastermind is not as simple as first thought.

The same questions will be asked; who is linked to whom? What involvement do they have in the game? And of course, who's game actually is it?

We see what people will go through to stay alive as, for the first time in the Saw series, lives are given a value and people will have to choose whose life is more valuable, and who will live to fight another day. This will brilliantly prompt the quote - "Look at me while you're killing me". A genuine classic for mine!

It's a must see if you've seen the others. I'm so glad I jumped on the Saw train from the start and have never once considered jumping off at any platform. A magnificent cinema experience and a must see!

Live or die. Make your choice.

Fame (11/10/09) [Archive]

Fame (2009)

Director - Kevin Tancharoen
Starring - Kay Panabaker, Asher Brook & Naturi Naughton

4.5 stars

This could very well be MJ's surprise packet of '09. Having not seen the 1980 original I was blessed with no preconceived ideas of what to expect. Also, having seen more than one rating below par for this musical remake I was never expecting a cinematic masterpiece. But I had free tickets and I'm never one to miss an opportunity to catch a movie.

What I saw was by no means a cinematic masterpiece but instead a fun-filled rollercoaster ride of emotions that had me captivated for every one of the 107 minutes of screen time. 'Fame' is a lot more than just a musical about college students who break into corny songs at the most inappropriate yet predictable times. It's a genuine drama about adolescents dealing with the transition into adulthood and the desire to follow what may seem like the impossible dream.

The characters are all brilliantly cast and all have superb on-screen chemistry. A real sense of friendship is conveyed between the lot of them and they are all believable in their roles.

There are numerous scenes with incredibly touching ballads that tug at the heart and soul and they are combined delectably with a carnival-like atmosphere of up-beat tracks complemented by some toe tapping dancing extraordinaire! The dance scene in the lunchroom is one of the more memorable ones that would have been a heap of fun to film and that really came across on-screen. Sensational!

All in all, 'Fame' is not just your everyday musical/drama film. It's not even a genuinely enjoyable story. For me, it's a lot more than that. I will always think of 'Fame' as a journey. A journey of hope and failure and of joy and pain. A journey of mateship and fitting in and of unity and togetherness. A journey of doing what you love and striving to be the best you can be. A journey of love and hurt and of being there for one another. But most of all it's a journey about finding who you are, and the road you take when your getting there. It highlights the importance of friendship and unity as well as illustrating how everyone has a part to play in each other’s lives. The songs and dancing just make this ride all the more enjoyable and appeal to a whole different set of emotions.

Off the cuff this could possibly be the best film I've seen this year to date. I loved every second of it and if my life regret before this was the fact that I couldn't go to East High with Troy Bolton and the HSM kids, it's now that my college years weren't spent tap-dancing on lunch tables and busting out ballads on the piano in the auditorium with the Fame crew.

A truly enjoyable experience and an emotionally gripping ride - right until the end. Not bad for a free ticket, ay?

The Soloist (03/09/09) [Archive]

The Soloist (2009)

Director - Joe Wright
Starring - Jamie Foxx & Robert Downey Jr.

3.5 stars

This is another one of those films that enjoyed a healthy reputation, captivating trailer and solid recipe for some serious success. 'The Soloist' was interestingly planned to have a November 2008 release but was held back due to Paramount already filling their quota of film releases per year. There was also speculation that it held back its release because it didn't want to compete against the juggernauts 'Slumdog Millionaire' and 'Benjamin Button' at the 2008 Oscars. It's fair to say that this was an inspired decision, because compared to giants of '08, 'The Soloist' wouldn't have stood a chance.

Based around the true story of Nathaniel Ayres Jr, (played by Jamie Foxx), a mentally ill genius musician who had once attended one of America's most illustrious musical colleges, Julliard, and reporter Steve Lopez (played by Robert Downey Jr) who discovers the homeless Ayers on the streets playing a violin with two strings and endeavours to get his story told. For Ayres, the inclusion of Lopez into his life opens a whole new world of opportunity that he never knew existed but it's debatable as to whether this is what's going to be best for him. With Lopez, he opens his heart for a gentleman he sees’s as needing help. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to initially understand what Ayres really wants.

The film itself appeared to begin really slowly before I soon realised that this was all there was too it. This slow beginning still kept me hanging on for the big action to take place but it was soon evident that this steady journey was in fact the catalyst behind the story. Rather than being blessed with numerous climatic moments, the basis around 'The Soloist' is simply the journey, lifestyle and understanding of characters and what they're about. In most drama's, an issue is raised and a resolution is desperately required. For this film, it can almost be seen as a biographical story that has a constant issue (Ayers' debilitating mental state and his struggle - if you would call it that - to fit into society) that is not resolved or left alone but merely explored. The result is a slow, almost meticulous ride through the relationship between Ayers and Lopez. Don't get me wrong, it's still an entertaining voyage that has moments of pain, beauty and sheer realism but I daresay would fail to excite the panel of Academy Award judges.

I hate to be painstakingly negative right off the bat because I did enjoy this film but it would be remiss of me not to mention a couple more issues I had with it. Flashbacks and missing information made the whole movie experience somewhat frustrating for me. The first flashback into Ayers childhood didn't come for a while - which is immediately disrupting for the flow - and even when it was there it didn't provide enough information. These flashbacks, that were intended to highlight the path Ayers had taken to get to the point he is at today, still left the viewer with many unanswered questions and took away from the real issue of friendship.

Jamie Foxx captured the complexity of Nathaniel Ayres Jr's character quite successfully. Ayers is exactly that - complex. Foxx ensures that he is a man with a clear mental illness and instability but still has his wits about him. His desire to keep outdoors and play his music, not leave his scattered street belongings and his misguided theories on God help ensure to the audience that he does in fact have some social differences, but apart from these more visual difficulties, Ayers is quite comprehendible and understanding on the inside. Foxx does a very applaud able job at conveying this through his delivery and mannerisms and making sure that he is not seen as a homeless loony but a man who is more just misunderstood.

So as a whole I was a little disappointed with the final result because I foolishly expected so much more. In reality, the story itself lacked the ammunition to fire on all cylinders and basing a movie on the issue of friendship and companionship without climax or real resolution was never going to make it an unforgettable blockbuster. With that said, two of Hollywood's best, Foxx and Downey Jr, work together brilliantly to portray a great journey and an overall enjoyable film. Definitely worth a look, even though it has limited release, but I wouldn't lose sleep over missing this one in the cinema as a DVD viewing wouldn't hamper much of the experience. I hate to use such a lacklustre cliché' but my initial summary of 'The Soloist' after exiting the cinema was "good but not great". Still worth a look.

The Taking of Pelham 123 (30/08/2009) [Archive]

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009)

Director - Tony Scott
Starring - Denzel Washington & John Travolta

4 stars

Ahh, the old case of remaking a Hollywood blockbuster. In 1974, Joseph Sargent directed what turned out to be a cinema masterpiece when his movie, The Taking of Pelham One Two Three, hit the screens. 35 years on and Tony Scott has decide to remake it. He follows a simple philosophy - nowadays it's quite difficult to come up with a fresh, original and capativating idea so why not just find something that was hotly popular in it's day, grab some big name actors, modernise certain elements and boom, you have another blockbuster.

This is precisely what Scott has done in his version of the 1974 classic and it's fair to say his process has paid dividends. The result is a popular (now modern) heist film that is founded on a solid plot and storyline and aided by some wonderful work by some of Hollywood's finest – most prevalently, Mr Denzel Washington.

What can't this man do? Denzel is absolutely phenomenal in this film - and not for the same reasons he has been in the past. No, he's not the ever assertive and powerfully dominant Coach Boone who made sure that everyone in the western world will remember the Titans for as long as they live, and he's not the dominant and unstoppable father vying to save the life of his dying son that put John Q on the map; he is something different. Denzel plays Walter Garber, the unlucky son of a bitch who happens to be on the other end of the radio when a learned terrorist happens to signal through and outline his demands. Garber is a calculated, yet slightly hesitant and unsure character - a role not often associated with Denzel Washington. This is what highlights his amazing talent and flexible versatility because he plain and simply nails it. For me, Denzel's performance ensures that this movie will be more successful than it should be, simply because of his incredibly believable performance.

In a nutshell (and it's not really a movie that can cope with a nutshell synopsis), an American terrorist who calls himself Ryder (played by John Travolta) intricately and systematically hijacks a train (the Pelham 123 train - hence the title) and demands 10 million dollars from the mayor within the hour or else he will begin to kill hostages one by one. He speaks through the train radio to Walter Garber who finds himself on the work station that is running the Pelham 123 for that day and as a result becomes a hostage negotiator on behalf of New York City.

Travolta is an interesting one. Already known in the cinematic world for his versatility, his job as the short-fused, educated terrorist is a very hit and miss one. His anger-fuelled rants for me are a little bit too over the top and sudden yet his more calculated profound moments are right on the money. His wit also pulls through effectively even though he wasn't aided with great dialogue throughout. It was a serviceable performance from big Johnny who played second fiddle to Washington throughout.

The whole action/heist genre certainly isn't my normal cup of tea but I have been known to get a pleasant surprise throughout my time viewing these types of films. The Taking of Pelham 123 certainly falls into that category. It was a genuinely enjoyable film. I loved how the characters remained constant throughout the story and although there was some development, it was all believable and warranted for the circumstances. I thought it was paced well and unlike a lot of movies where a race against time is involved, the film didn't play around too much with a countdown which maintained an important element of realism which is something that seems to get forgotten too often in these types of flicks. In terms of negatives, I thought there were far too many quick, short camera shots. This can be a good effect sometimes to portray urgency and panic but in this case it was used a) in inappropriate situations where this effect wasn't required, b) far too often which results in the audience straining themselves and working too hard to stay involved in the movie which is NEVER the intention, and c) for too long. There were times when these fast cuts were going on for minutes at a time - that's enough to make someone sick. I was thought that the dialogue could have been better. As a whole it was fine and relevant, but on a few occasions something corny or irrelevant would be said and you would think "wow, really? they just said that" making you wonder why somebody would make a conscious effort to actually put it in the screenplay in the first place.

In its entirety the film is enjoyable. Do I think that Tony Scott has just got a heap of money, some big name actors and a proven storyline and put everything together like that? Yes. Could this movie be more advanced if it was directed differently? Yes. But as a whole, it works, and who am I to go nit-picking about these issues when I got 2 hours of entertainment for my 14 bucks?!

Public Enemies (02/08/09) [Archive]

Public Enemies (2009)

Director - Michael Mann
Starring - Johnny Depp & Christian Bale

3.5 stars

There were two main reasons why I wanted to see this. One - the hype. It's been pumped up as one of the best films of the year so I'd be crazy not to see what all the fuss was about. Two - Johnny Depp. Who better to have leading this juggernaut then the greatest actor in the land?

The whole John Dillinger story is relatively unknown to me, and on this particular occasion, I actually would rather have been privy to information about his life and story. In some cases, not knowing the true facts about a film can be brilliant and somewhat liberating but in 'Public Enemies' I think it would have been better to know a little bit about Dillinger's timeline.

The main reason being that the movie appeared to rush itself a little bit. His back story was touched on briefly throughout the films entirety but some things like his relationship with Billie seemed to be incredibly fast tracked. In fairness to director Michael Mann, I'm sure Dillinger's journey is more complex then what he can put in a 2 hour 23 minute film but conveying relationship development between the lead couple should be far more clear cut than what was on screen. Cinema Studies 101, Mann!

Johnny Depp was, as expected, fantastic. He captured the character well and I believe is one of very few that could have pulled off such a versatile role. The man is a genius - living legend if you will. Christian Bale was also very good as number one cop Melvin Purvis (who had the unenviable job of trying to stop the ever elusive John Dillinger) which is interesting because I don't overly like him as an actor. I may have to start to revise that notion because his last few performances have been quite to my liking. The man can act.

The music was great - one of the highlights of the film. It was all era-relevant and the instrumental piece played during the numerous bank robbing scenes helped to not only illustrate a sign of time times, but its jovial tune portrayed Dillinger and co. as men who aren't pure evil (as there occupation may suggest) and just having "too good a time today to be thinking about tomorrow".

It was a pretty good movie all up. Not revolutionary by any stretch of the imagination and more or less what I expected it to be. My biggest qualm was the rushed nature of the storyline and slight (only very slight) lack of flow in the overall body of the movie.

Do I recommend it? Here's a better question - does it matter? You guys are going to watch 'Public Enemies' regardless of what I have to say and so you should. Whether you enjoy it or not you should still go and see it. Everyone loves a good hype and I'm sure this will be one of those movies that in 10 years time when someone says, 'Nah, I've never seen Public Enemies', a hush will go over the room and they'll most likely lose a number of friends.

See it, get in on the hype, but don't expect miracles.

Drag Me To Hell (26/07/09) [Archive]

Drag Me To Hell (2009)

Director - Sam Raimi
Starring - Alison Lohman & Justin Long

1.5 stars

Not great. 'Drag Me To Hell' really didn't get the mix right. It tried desperately hard to combine horror and thriller elements with a bit of comedy and that really didn't work. It's very hard to be kept on the edge and then being forced to laugh. It's emotionally confusing - not something you want to feel when going to the cinemas.

I've also got a big problem with films that are founded on a curse or a hex or even a gypsy in general. There's too much of a grey area involved and in this case it seemed that no matter what Christine did she was always screwed. It's the beauty of film making in the fact that there are no rules you have to follow but with that said it makes it twice as hard for the audience to follow.

Alison Lohman starred as Christine Brown, a loan advisor with a bank who has desires to become assistant manager - a role that has been recently vacated. In an attempt to appear firm, she turned down a loan extension for an eldery woman who, understandably pissed-off, put a curse on Christine that would see her 'dragged to hell', for lack of a better term, within 72 hrs.

I've never seen anything (to my knowledge) with Lohman in and I don't think I will again. She really wasn't up to scratch and was very hard to believe. Justin Long starred as her boyfriend and although he was good, he is at a stage now where you know what you get with him.

I've heard good things about this film but I'm not really sure why. For me it is simply another cheap, crappy horror film that I would definitely wait for it to come out on TV and I'd only watch it if nothing else was on.

The Proposal (18/06/09) [Archive]

The Proposal (2009)

Director - Anne Fletcher
Starring - Sandra Bullock & Ryan Reynolds

3 stars

Oh how I love Ryan Reynolds. It's official, Van Wilder himself is my favourite actor. Seriously, the man is brilliant and this man crush goes beyond his boyishly handsome exterior. He is a very talented actor and really should be (and probably is) regardless as a Hollywood powerhouse. Of late he has played some great roles in a more 'puffy' sort of environment but it doesn't stop him nailing every single one. He stole my heart in 'Definitely, Maybe' and he has done it once again in this one, bouncing of Sandra Bullock brilliantly to once again create an incredibly, believable character. Master.

Anyways, that's Reynolds covered, sadly I can't be as positive about the movie. It's a pretty do-able storyline that was always going to work, especially with Reynolds and Bullock headlining the show. Boss of a successful corporation is going to be deported to Canada because of a failed visa application. She blackmails her assistant into marrying her for legal reasons so she can stay in the country and he regretfully accepts. They are forced to spend time together and secretly come to realise that maybe, just maybe, behind the hatred they express they actually do care for one another :O ... the rest you'll have to watch for yourself.

This is by no means a groundbreaking chick flick, and I would know. Still, as a romantic comedy I feel that I did have a bias against it before I saw that. You see, two nights earlier I had watched The Hangover to get a ravishing dose of comedy and the day before I treated myself to a screening of Jae-young Kwak's My Sassy Girl, the mother of all romances. So here I am, watching this cute little rom com with my comedy and romance senses still stimulated from previous films - The Proposal was never going to win.

With that said it is just that, a cute little rom com, and I'm not about to go and condemn it for that reason alone. It was enjoyable, and provided some light-hearted laughs and genuine entertainment. I think the Reynolds/Bullock relationship worked well. They had a bit of chemistry and that was good, but I could never actually see it working between them, so I dunno, casting issue??

So there you have it, if you like chick flicks then go and see it because you know what you like, and with The Proposal you pretty much know what you're going to get. I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to see it again and I definitely think I will in a time where I'm not suffering from my Hangover/Sassy Girl predicament!

The Hangover (16/06/09) [Archive]

The Hangover (2009)

Director - Todd Phillips
Starring - Zach Galifianakis, Bradley Cooper & Ed Helms

4 stars

Don't want to harp too much on this one because I'm pretty sure everyone has seen it and loved it so I'd pretty much be preaching to the choir - not how I roll.
So, if you haven't seen it, see it. If you want to see it and have no one to go with because all your friends have already been lucky enough to witness this laugh out loud comedy, go by yourself. Nah, seriously don't do that. Just ask them to see it again, because I'm sure they would.

Anyways, for me it was like the 'Superbad' of '09 for genuine laugh value. Unlike the teenage comedies of 'Superbad' and 'American Pie', The Hangover is probably more relevant to a slightly older crowd and that probably ticks some good boxes in terms of its money-making abilities.

It really was quite hilarious, with a far-fetched yet feasible (yeah that doesn't make sense to me either) storyline. Without a doubt the man that steals the show is Zach Galifianakis who plays Allan, a pretty likeable, mentally slow sort of character. He lightens up the screen with some brilliant gags and some bloody funny mannerisms. Listening to him call Rain Man a retard (much funnier when heard) is just comic genuis by a 37 year old rookie actor.

I'm not going to keep harping on this fresh comedy because everyone already knows everything about it, and if you don't then clearly you don't have a sense of humour and therefore don't appreciate the beauty that actually does exist in life and should be shot several times until you've been fatally wounded - it really is that funny.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (04/05/09) [Archive]

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009)

Director - Gavin Hood
Starring - Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber & Ryan Reynolds

3 stars

Before I begin I would like to point out the fact that I'm no action freak and although I can watch and enjoy and action flick, it isn't my ideal cup of tea and would have to be an absoloute pearler to get a high mark from me (Sin City esq.)
So in the context, 3 stars is a decent effort for this Box Office Blockbuster. I actually enjoyed it, and in one word I would have to describe 'Wolverine' as "cool". It was a "cool" movie. Nothing groundbreaking, nothing overly memorable but pretty easy to sit through and enjoy.

Our boy Hugh was great. There's not much he can't do and he always seems to manage to bring Logan/Wolverine to life in the X-Men films. The biggest talking point of late is how tanked up he is now and although I don't want to dwell on such a moot point I would like to emphasise this fact. The man is ripped. Seriously, if you accidently bumped into him you would be sure to bruise up pretty severely.

Ryan Reynolds also plays a nice little cameo role. He doesn't steal the show by any means but the fact that I like him is enough reason for me to give him a mention in my review.

In short, some people will walk out of this film touching themselves and claiming that this is one of the greatest movies ever made. It's a sad truth I know, but the fact is the effects and action will very much appeal to people who love this genre, and that is understandable. Personally, I enjoyed it but would not rush to see it again. Take out Jackman and it loses a star. Take out Reynolds and there goes another half star. Obviously the X-Men team had the cash to make everything work but it was based on a pretty 'meh' storyline.

Doesn't make it a bad movie and it is easy to watch and enjoy.