Sweet_Ophelia Reviews

The Dressmaker (I) (2015)

A little Aussie marvel

[10/10 · 5 November 2015]

Today I had the absolute pleasure of seeing a film I've been waiting about a decade for. 'The Dressmaker' is adapted from Rosalie Ham's bestselling Australian book which first came out in 2000, and I studied in high school about that long ago too. Ms Ham actually came and spoke at my school, and I can still remember her telling us that she was currently writing a screenplay of the book – but that she wasn't sure if the American production company would want the movie to be set in Australia or adapted to the bible-belt/deep south of America.

Well. It's the year 2015 and 'The Dressmaker' is here – and it's spectacular and spectacularly Aussie. Indeed, I couldn't have pictured a film adaptation that took the Australia out of this country-Gothic dark comedy tale, and watching the film (shot around Victoria in Horsham, Little River and Yarraville) I got tingles when I saw the town of Dungatar on the screen – bought so precisely to life. The lonely white gum trees and rocky-red dust bowl look, the rusted tin-roofs and sagging clapboard buildings. The distinctly Australian setting becomes a character unto itself, and a stark background to Tilly Dunnage's unfolding tale of style and secrets …

I absolutely loved the book when I studied it in school, and I'm thrilled to report that the film is equally fantastic and one of the best adaptations I've seen. Kate Winslet is Tilly who returns home to look after her ailing mother (and town outcast) "mad" Molly … but she's also returned home to discover the truth of why she was sent away as a child. The town of Dungatar is sure that Tilly murdered a boy, and Tilly is half-convinced of the rumor too, and sure it's why she's now cursed. But she also knows that Dungatar never had any love for her and Molly growing up, and if she wants to get close to the truth she'll have to use everything in her arsenal to pry it out of them.

Tilly's arsenal happens to be fashion. Haute-couture, to be more precise. Since running away from a Melbourne boarding school as a girl, she traveled from London to Milan and Paris, studying under the greats (Balenciaga!) and when she returns to Dungatar she's a veritable fashion powerhouse – using her Singer sewing machine to create Dior-inspired and Tilly-originals to coax the vile women of Dungatar into a false sense of individuality and specialness …

The cast in this film is fantastic. Kate Winslet and Judy Davis clearly have a ball playing contentious mother/daughter pair Tilly and Molly, and there's a beautiful balance of the absurd and heartbreaking between them. Liam Hemsworth as one of the few kind Dungatar townspeople who pursues Tilly romantically, despite her dire warnings of a curse, is at his charming best here – the role of Teddy McSwiney isn't much of a stretch for him, but it's lovely to see and hear a Hemsworth in a little Aussie role that suits him to a tee (and, look, at school my fellow classmates were dead-set on the likes of Beau Brady from 'Home and Away' playing Teddy so – Liam's wonderful!).

The film is choc-a-block with Aussie stars playing dastardly villains or defeated characters in the town of Dungatar – Shane Jacobson, Barry Otto, Shane Bourne and Alison Whyte among them. Some of these minor roles clearly got a bit jumbled in the editing; there's a wayward flirtation between Rebecca Gibney and a shop-keep that just sort of goes nowhere … but then there's Hugo Weaving as the kindly cross-dressing Sergeant Farrat, making up for mistakes in the past by befriending Tilly and coming to her and Molly's defense – Weaving shines in the role and clearly had a ball.

Another stand-out was Sarah Snook as Gertrude 'Trudy' Pratt, an old classmate of Tilly's who becomes one of her main clotheshorses. Snook is in everything at the moment (coming off 'The Secret River' adaptation, now in 'The Beautiful Lie') and she's just wonderful. In this film when the clothes are also characters as much as the setting, Snook is breathtaking in Tilly's Dior and Balenciaga. The film is set in the 1950s so it's vintage Dior and Balenciaga, darling – everyone looks like a Lauren Bacall and Katharine Hepburn throwback, and it especially suits Snook with her luminous, luminous skin and enviable hourglass figure.

Kate Winslet is truly superb – of course she nails the accent, that's one of her great strengths (remember 1994's 'Heavenly Creatures'?) – and she's absolutely stunning in all of the vintage couture. But she really does justice to Tilly, a complex and fragile character beneath all those breathtaking outfits like suits of armor.

I t was great fun to see this story I've long loved come to life. Director Jocelyn Moorhouse has made a sumptuous film that frames the stark town of Dungatar as beautifully as she does the actresses swanning in the stunning gowns. The adaptation is one of the best I've ever seen, but then again Rosalie Ham had some great material on offer in her country-Gothic tale of ball gowns and small-town brutality. I couldn't believe how hard I cried in some parts, even as I vividly remembered having the wind knocked out of me when I first read the twists and turns in Ham's book all those years ago … 'The Dressmaker' is a little Aussie marvel.

Dance Academy (2010–2013)

I fell into obsession...

[10/10 · 25 April 2012]

My new obsession is Australian ABC3 teen drama, 'Dance Academy'. To be fair, I am jumping on this band-wagon way too late. The first season aired in Australia in 2010, followed by a year-long gap when the show's creators didn't know if it would be picked up for a second season . . . which it (thankfully) was, airing this year between March and April. There are 26 episodes in a season, and the last one for 2012 aired on April 24. And, yes, a third season has been commissioned (no word on whether or not there will be another year-long gap between season 2 and 3, making for a 2014 release?).

The show follows fifteen-year-old country ballerina, Tara Webster (Xenia Goodwin) whose love of dance stems from a dream of flying. Tara gets one step closer to her dream when she is accepted into Sydney's prestigious National Dance Academy. . . but it doesn't take long before Tara realizes that loving dance isn't the same as being a good dancer.

Tara's technique is not where it needs to be, and her fellow students at the Academy are cut-throat, with their eye on becoming principal dancers by the end of their three years. In her first week at the Academy, Tara is given the nickname 'training bra' by scholarship kid Christian Reed (Jordan Rodrigues) after an embarrassing changing-room incident with the beautiful Ethan Karamakov (Tim Pocock) who happens to be the half-son of an infamous Australian prima-ballerina and choreographer. Tara's roommate is Abigail Armstrong (Dena Kaplan) the best and most ruthless first year dancer at the academy, and the one with the biggest grudge against 'country bumpkin', Tara.

Tara is ranked lowest in all of her dance classes and her teacher, the cold-blooded Miss Raine (Tara Morice) lets her know that she has a long way to go. . . But Tara got into the Academy because she has something that no dancer can learn - she puts her heart and soul into every pointe and pirouette. She dances from the heart.

There are bright spots in Tara's new life. Like Ethan's half-sister, Kat Karamakov (Alicia Banit) a bubbly, bright and begrudgingly good dancer who struggles to be one of the 'betty bunheads'. Kat's best friend is Samuel 'Sammy' Lieberman (Tom Green) string-bean with a heart of gold, who is attending the Academy without his father's support.

Season one of 'Dance Academy' follows Tara and her friends through the highs and lows of first year. Second season shows the gang return for second year, and adds goofball Ben Tickle (Thomas Lacey) to the crew, as well as new prima mean-girl in Grace Whitney (Issi Durant).

'Dance Academy' is phenomenal. Created by Samantha Strauss and Joanna Werner, it is a fantastic series that combines a coming-of-age story with all the requisite heartbreak, love triangles and hiccups, with the backdrop of a competitive creative environment.

The show is shot in the heart of Sydney, literally. The National Dance Academy is situated near Circular Quay, while the boarding school lies in The Rocks (the most beautiful and expensive area of the city).

I also love the show because it has a great, diverse cast. When so many Australian shows are lacking ethnic diversity in their casts, 'Dance Academy' shows a far truer Australian melting-pot and is more interesting for it. But the diversity is also in the story lines explored - the show had a wonderful plot about Sammy being attracted to his male roommate, Christian . . . this plot, in particular, was handled beautifully with no over-dramatizing; it was treated as the coming-of- age it was, grounded in reality and with little flamboyance some shows sometimes want to give the 'coming out' storyline.

Other heavy issues have been touched on - such as eating disorders and bullying (in the form of teacher/student, to make for an especially interesting change). And, of course, the complications of love and relationships are also consistently touched on. From liking your best friend's brother, to liking your best friend's ex. First season has a mini love-triangle between Tara, Christian and Ethan while second season changes shape to explore a Kat/Christian/Tara love complication. The romantic up's and down's of these characters are a real draw-card for fans, and the writers do a brilliant job of spreading the drama out across 26, half-hour episodes. But my favourite couplings have been Sammy's - the character with the most interesting and diverse love background, I have most enjoyed his romantic story lines.

I can't go past a review of 'Dance Academy' without at least touching on the dancing in the show (even though I must confess, I have the dance skills of a one-legged robot). The choreography is beautiful, and tells a story in itself. From Tara's obsession with 'The Red Shoes', to Sammy's explosively heartbreaking season two solo, performed to the Jezabel's 'She's So Hard'. The actors do a remarkable job, and the choreography is so good that while watching an episode I do find my feet pointing and hips shaking. God, I wish I could dance.

I fell into obsession watching the first season of 'Dance Academy', but it was really the second season that cemented this show as something truly remarkable for me. The second season storyline takes a dramatic and heart-wrenching twist towards the end. I refuse to give anything away, but save to say the writers outdid themselves and the actors broke my heart while watching a breathtakingly sad story unfold.

'Dance Academy' is one of the best Australian shows I have had the pleasure of watching in recent years. It's a little bit 'Centre Stage' crossed with 'Heartbreak High', and with stories and dialogue that would do Aussie YA proud.

Skins (2011)

This could have been some kind of wonderful... emphasis on 'could'

[1/10 · 3 February 2011]

I hope the American creators of 'Skins' realise how much potential has been wasted on their remake.

The British E4 'Skins', created by Jamie Brittain and Bryan Elsley is fantastic. And what makes the show so great is its versatility. Currently the UK version is in its fifth season with its third remodelled cast.

The American version is a remake of its Pommie counterpart . . . sometimes word-for-word, or shot-for-shot. Heck, they've even recreated the promo photo shoots down to the 'pile-on' cast shot. Yawn. 'Skins' is a show about teenagers. Not your 'Gossip Girl', '90210' and 'O.C.' privileged darlings where fans watch to live vicariously and glimpse the high-life. 'Skins' is all about the relatable. Typical teenagers in typical towns doing typical (if hair-raising) things. The UK version is set in Bristol (the 'meat and potatoes' town of England) while the US version is set in Baltimore (and equally unimpressive slice of suburbia). The brilliance of the show lies in the fact that the teenage characters get up to wicked stunts and tangled loves regardless of their dull surroundings. Because, teenagers will be teenagers no matter where they live. It's no shock that teens living and loving in New York will have some wild adventures. What 'Skins' shows is that teens even in backwoods Noweheresville will get up to the same sorts of shenanigans . . . and often with more significant and profound experiences.

And that's what makes Jamie Brittain and Bryan Elsley's 'Skins' framework so adaptable. You don't need the same characters to tell these stories. All you need is teenagers. Teenagers are the portal through which these tales are told. All the US makers had to do was choose a suitably unremarkable setting (Baltimore – check) and use typical teen stereotypes to base their show around. And Lord knows that the Americans have enough clichés thanks to John Hughes movies – the jock, the princess, the freak, the nerd. . .

Unfortunately MTV wimped out. They took the easy route and, effectively, decided to copy off someone else's homework. For shame!

They have replicated entire episodes. They have taken British characters and changed their names (Sid – Stanley) and tried to fit square pegs into round holes. For shame! And it's even worse because there is every evidence that if MTV had made 'Skins' their own – created their own characters and story lines and used the bare framework of 'teenagers' (hardly worth the copyright!) then this series could have succeeded. Case in point, Tea.

The best thing about the US version is the one character that they made themselves; 'Tea' is played by Sofia Black-D'Elia and she's fabulous. She's a warped cliché – an American cheerleader, but with the twist of also being a lesbian. She is a replacement character from the UK version, 'Tea' as a stand in for the male homosexual character of Maxxie (Mitch Hewer).

Tea's episode was the second one of the season and it was fantastic. Tea as a cheerleader lesbian who is 'out' at school, perhaps even the token homosexual amongst her friends. But at home she keeps her sexuality under-wraps from her Jewish family. Tea's episode had such American flavour – as Tea hangs out at a lesbian Rockabilly dance hall to pick up chicks – it was a flavourful mix of old Americana with a modern twist. The writers even added layers of complications to Tea's already hectic life by introducing an uneasy attraction between her and the show's playboy Lothario, Tony (James Newman). This 'romance' is doomed to be one-sided, though Tony looks to be in determined pursuit of the unattainable.

Tea's second episode was exactly what I wanted from the American version of Skins. I wanted the Yanks to make this show their own. Alas, the third episode, 'Chris', was back to the unoriginal 'been-there-seen- that' of the UK version.

The first season of Skins USA is a dismal failure. But the character of 'Tea' and her Americana-meets-L-Word episode is proof positive that the Yanks can do it! They just have to take a chance – think outside the (British) square, infuse some originality into their version and trust in their writers to come up with something as equally smashing as their Pommie counterparts.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)

Yikes

[1/10 · 31 May 2008]

Indiana Jones is back and up to his old ways. In his fourth adventure Indy is off to Peru to locate a Mayan crystal skull before some psychic scientist soviets can get their hands on it..... and it's all down hill from that iffy storyline.

It is a sad, sad day when internet gossip and speculation about a much anticipated and, by all means highly secretive, Spielberg/Lucas film turns out to all be pretty much right on the money. Mut Williams (Shia LaBeouf) 'wild one' Marlon Brando wannabe (or just victim of a lazy wardrobe) is indeed Indy and Marion Ravenwood's (Karen Allen) son. Mac McHale (Ray Winstone) is a double-agent for the Soviets. And no low expectations will be proved wrong regarding the quality of revisited, much beloved film franchises.

The plot is too confusing, especially since the film starts right in the thick of the action, you never quite catch up. The acting, even from beloved Aussie and Oscar winner Cate Blanchett, is hammy at best - not helped by the appalling dialogue and absurd story. I feel sorriest for Shia LaBeouf – after a successful turn in Michael Bay's 'Transformers' he was generally regarded as 'the next big thing', and you can hardly blame the kid for not turning down a Spielberg/Lucas film, despite the awful script. But I am afraid that after his role as Mutt many will choose only to remember him in the biggest letdown of their movie-going experience.

Is it all bad? Well, I did illicit a few chuckles (playing on Indiana's fear of snakes is always a guarantee) and I was a little impressed by a certain car chase/sword fight until it went on for too long and included a Tarzan spin-off and Wicked Witch of the West "fly my pretty's!" moment. Oh boy.

In the end though, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (which looks like it was stuffed with tin-foil), did little more than solidify my feelings that the best days of Steven Spielberg and George Lucas are now far behind them. Now it seems their mission in life is to flog a dead horse and ruin the franchises that once represented their glory days. It is time for those two favorite sons of Hollywood to retire quietly before their flops eclipse their successes. Sad, but after seeing Crystal Skull, very true!

You know that all is lost when the scariest thing in an Indiana Jones film are some ants.... well, the ants and the plot/acting/dialogue/CGI....

Dexter (2006–2013)

Grey is best

[10/10 · 18 February 2008]

Dexter Morgan (Michael C. Hall) is a conundrum wrapped in contradiction. By day, he is a blood splatter expert working for the Miami police whose adoptive father, Harry (James Remar) was one of the cities finest and whose sister, Deborah (Jennifer Carpenter) is also a detective in the force. Dexter is also the dutifully understanding boyfriend of Rita (Julie Benz) and father-figure to her two children whose dad is a heroin addict wife-beater doing time. But come night time, Dexter is a serial killer. To his credit he only ever kills those who deserve it – 'monsters' like himself. Dexter admits however, through insightful and often chilling voice-over, that he is most certainly no super-hero. He is a self-aware socio-path who does not dream, feel guilt, love and who has an insatiable urge to kill with precision. The only reason he kills those who deserve his brutality is because of his adoptive father, Harry (Remar) and a code that he was taught. Recognizing Dexter's impulses at an early age, Harry impressed upon his adoptive son the lessons of a hardened cop whose seen too much – the unfortunate truth that the 'system' to which he dedicated his life, didn't always work. Most of the time bad people got away with doing bad things, and sometimes there just isn't any justice in the world. Enter Dexter. Harry taught him to wear a mask for the world – a mask of normalcy to hide his true psychopathic tendencies which are only to be unleashed upon those the system wrongly lets free.

The first season of Dexter pivots around the Miami police department's search for a serial killer, nicknamed the 'ice-truck killer' for the way he transports mutilated and drained bodies, leaving them in unusual places around the city for the police to find. A warped present. Even more warped is that the mysterious killer appears to be speaking directly to Dexter. With each twisted crime scene a new stone upturns for Dexter as he finds himself a new 'play-friend' – someone who is just like he is, but who doesn't appear to hide his impulses from the world the same way Dexter does, as Harry taught him to.

'Dexter' is at once a 12-part crime thriller, with each new episode the puzzle of the ice-truck killer becomes more involved. But more than a tantalizing whodunnit, 'Dexter' is a gruesomely intriguing glimpse into the mind and everyday life of a socio-path masquerading as an average joe. The character of Dexter Morgan is following in the same footsteps as Tony Soprano ("The Sopranos"), and to a less commercially successful extent, Joss Whedon's Captain Mal ("Serenity"). Dexter can be classed in the same league as that mob boss and small-time space thief because like them, the character is not the classic 'good' guy. He is bad. Sure, he goes around giving just deserts to fellow serial killers, rapists, paedophiles and all other manner of pond scum – but he is still intrinsically 'bad'. And he even admits it – he enjoys torturing and killing these people, he does not do it because they deserve to die, there is no real justice to his killings – he just needs to kill and as Harry instructed him, if he's going to do it anyway, he may as well kill those who deserve to die. And that's why Dexter is the best sort of protagonist. Finding yourself rooting for Dex, being on his side is all together strange and unnerving – that as an audience you side with the serial killer. Its very odd. But these days audiences like their protagonists to be all about the shades of grey – the morally ambiguous are so much more interesting than those on the straight and narrow.

And adding to the appeal of Dexter is Michael C. Hall. No stranger to the quirky and successful television series, Hall comes from good stock having had main role on the successful 'Six Feet Under'. From morgue to murder, Hall is enthralling – altogether sinister, likable, intimidating and sometimes appearing heroic. Dexter is no easy characterization – he has two completely opposite sides to him, both of which have to be believable for the other to hold up for the audience – a family man and a frightening serial killer. Hall is the best kind of leading man – altogether likable yet chillingly intimidating.

Its pretty much a universally acknowledged fact that television is where the real talent lies these days. TV is taking more chances than the box-office ruled films being produced, and cable means that networks are able to expand their viewer-ship and create a little more outside the box than was previously allowed on commercial television for the masses, so to speak. 'Dexter' is a testament to that truth. A gutsy, confronting, sometimes unsettling but completely satisfying and intense show that should not be missed.

Jumper (2008)

A good idea poorly executed

[2/10 · 18 February 2008]

Based on the 1992 novel by Steven Gould, 'Jumper' is a story of 'Jumpers' - genetic oddities. Human-beings with the ability to somehow cause a rip through space and time and 'jump' to any destination in the world. Their only restrictions are that they have to be able to visualize their destination – so either they have to have been there before, or seen pictures of the place.

The jumper protagonist of Doug Liman's (The Bourne Identity) movie is David Rice (Hayden Christensen) who discovered his genetic talents as a teenager and promptly left home to live it up robbing banks and traipsing all over the world in his down time. Eight years later from when we first see David realize his potential and leave behind his hopeless single-parent father, a mysterious man by the name of Roland (Samuel L. Jackson) is hot on his trail and seems to know about his abilities. Armed with tricky gadgetry and a holier-than-though attitude toward Jumpers like David, Roland explains that he is a Paladin, from an organization that track down and kill Jumpers for the good of the Universe, implying that their jumping has some adverse affects on the natural world? Now on the run from these Paladin's, David returns to his home town and to his childhood sweetheart, Millie (Rachel Bilson) whom he whisks away to Rome for some inexplicable reason. While on the run from the Paladin's David meets Griffin (Jamie Bell), a fellow jumper who has a personal vendetta against all Paladins.

The premise was interesting. The trailer was okay. The film was based on a fairly well- received science fiction book. So how bad could this big blockbuster flick be?

Bad.

What you see in the trailer is the best of the film. You can't really pin-point the faults to one specific area. Yes, the writing is bad. Not awful, but tweaks were definitely needed – dialogue was flat and there was little to no characterization. The cast don't quite work. Hayden Christensen, widely despised by Star Wars fans everywhere seems to be a supporting actor in a leading mans clothes. He just doesn't have the charisma, likability, that 'it' factor to carry such a role. Rachel Bilson – presumably cast for being Rachel Bilson – seems to be thrown into the mix as a love interest after-thought and her presence throughout is puzzling. She is bland, but you can't really blame her (well you could... she is just playing a slightly less Californian version of Summer Roberts), her character really was just thrown into the film for the seeming romantic hell of it? Samuel L. Jackson isn't really making any stretches with the role of ambiguous bad guy. Jamie Bell was underused and underdeveloped.

Mostly it's all a bit too all over the place (literally and figuratively).

The 'jumps' are pretty cool. An impressive special effect that looks almost like a mini- hurricane when the characters jump. The locations are incredible – the Colosseum, Egypt, Big Ben. But the actual plot is all over the place. Why did David return to his home town? Why did he come back for Millie after eight years of letting people think he was dead? Who are the Paladins, apart from an organization who hate jumpers? What is it that allows these jumpers to jump? How many jumpers are there in the world? How did Griffin get out of that sticky situation?

Part of the faults of the plot are to do with the fact that so much is left wide open for a sequel. So many unanswered questions intended to keep us guessing until the second movie just leave great big gaping holes in the film that irritate. In the end the movie is utterly dissatisfying, verging on frustrating.

This is most definitely one of the worst movie's of 2008. And it's only February. Watch out for this one come Razzie time.

A Map for Saturday (2007)

Articulating self-discovery

[9/10 · 13 January 2008]

In 2005 Brook Silva-Braga put his seemingly idyllic life on hold to back-pack around the world. A successful television producer living in New York, Braga explains in a diary-entry type video confessional that now in his late twenties he sees himself heading down the same typical path as all his friends: success, marriage, children etc, etc. Seeing a small window of opportunity he tells work that he's taking a year off for a solo trip around the world, packs up his apartment and prepares for a journey that he documents with a hand-held camera.

Starting in Australia then travelling up through Asia, Europe and culminating in Brazil – Braga's documented journey is an exposè on the backpacking lifestyle. Backpacking is a fairly new phenomenon that has come about thanks to Globalization – easy travel, the global village, cheap airfares and an entirely new tourism industry that feeds and feeds off of backpackers. As Braga experiences different emotions, frustrations and makes some small self-discoveries he finds that his experiences are pretty much shared by all who decide to carry their lives on their backs. When he finds himself feeling lonely in his first few days in Sydney, Australia his feelings are articulated by the many fellow backpackers he turns his camera on to interview. All explain a similar feeling of depression in the first few days away from home and the loneliness of seeing beautiful landmarks by yourself, with no-one to share them with. But eventually all Braga's backpackers agree that a decision to make the most of a unique situation sees them making easy friendships with those they share a Hostel with – and this is a subject touched upon many times in 'A Map for Saturday' – the friendships that are made and broken in maybe a few hours, or a few days. Braga muses at one point that as a backpacker he has become very good at saying goodbye, not quite sure if this is a good or bad thing? A fellow American backpacker Braga meets in London feels the short-lived friendships are a blessing and special if only because unlike 'normal' friends who drift apart over a period of time, when backpacking it is easy to mark where a friendship began and ended. It is a bond made over a very short period of time, remembered in association with a place in the world.

In the second half of Braga's documentary, and at the tail-end of his year-long journey, he makes the interesting observation that while travelling he has only met two fellow American backpackers. Braga admits that in America, living the American dream means working all year long to make enough money to go away for two weeks on a luxury holiday. Where other cultures seem to have a high respect for self-discovery and soul-searching travel (he notes that the majority of backpackers he has met are proud Canadians) in America ad campaigns for travel aren't focused on 'roughing it' but rather, 'lapping it up'.

In the last half of his final episode Braga is clearly world-weary and maybe even a little tired of the backpacking lifestyle. Every fellow backpacker he interviews admit that eventually 'the five questions' they are constantly being asked begin to annoy ("where have you been? where are you from?", etc) and as one Irish backpacker admits, even the sights begin to bore "oh, another waterfall" he dead-pans. An English woman admits to being fed-up with living out of a backpack from day to day, and having to repack every day. And finally as if the universe is telling him personally that enough is enough, Braga is mugged in Rio De Janeiro – it's time to go home. And here Braga's final musings concern the backpacker when they return home. How hard it is for those who traveled solo, to not have anyone to share their experiences with completely – and it seems true enough, how to explain to someone who has been working behind a desk all year what a trip around the world was like?

Never having backpacked myself – watching Braga's documentary made me want to give it a go. I only wish there had been a bit more practicality to his backpacking doco, a few helpful hints as opposed to purely focusing on the emotional journey of the individual backpacker. Braga's documentary is uplifting, funny and sincere – I also just wish it had been made into a 6 part series as opposed to two hour-long episodes. There must have been a lot of editing of his year-long journey – so much has obviously been condensed down. Perhaps a longer series would have allowed more observation of the various cultures and countries and more even handedness between the physical journey and the spiritual one, because Braga is a producer and does have an eye for scenery – some of the shots he's captured are absolutely beautiful, it's just a shame that there isn't much focus on the various countries so much as the personal journey he is on. Still, that journey is an important one and fascinating to watch - particularly Braga's time spent in Thailand so soon after the Tsunami, or his daring travel to Nepal during a time of civil unrest. HIs time in these two places is perhaps the most fascinating because there is lengthy observation of the cultures and current political climate as well as how the countries impact upon him personally.

Still, 'A Map for Saturday' is a must-see series. Braga has explored a fascinating lifestyle that few dare to experience, and he has found a way to communicate and relate those unique experiences through funny and observing commentaries. I particularly liked his explanation of how it felt to be going home after a year abroad, after a year of travelling and discovering: "it's like breaking up with someone you love, like quitting a job".

Atonement (2007)

Impressive artistic endeavor

[7/10 · 14 October 2007]

'Atonement' tells the story of a series of unfortunate events, misinterpretations and consequences as 13 year old Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan) accuses her childhood friend, Robbie Turner (James McAvoy) of a terrible crime he did not commit. Opening in 1935, the story moves forward five years to show the repercussions of Briony's mistake on both Robbie and Briony's sister Cecilia (Keira Knightley), who abandons her family to stick by Robbie and wait for him, first to return from prison and then from war. 'Atonement' is an adaptation of Ian McEwan's hugely successful 2001 novel of the same name. Adapted by Christopher Hampton ('The Quiet American') and directed by Joe Wright ('Pride and Prejudice'), it is a sweeping saga of love and war, class consciousness, guilt and redemption.

Having read and thoroughly enjoyed McEwan's novel, I had high-hopes for this film – further fueled by my reading only the most glowing reviews after it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival this year. But after watching the film, I've got to say I don't really see what all the fuss is about.

The buzz is that Keira Knightley will receive another Oscar nod for her performance as the loyal lady in waiting, Cecilia Tallis as will James McAvoy for his role as the wrongly-accused Robbie Turner. I am a big fan of both Knightley and McAvoy. Knightley for her kudos-earning role as Elizabeth Bennett and McAvoy because he is just lovely, Scottish and has been on my radar since the British TV show 'Shameless'. However, both actors deliver fairly stoic performances by my reckoning. It's not entirely their fault, they are playing very class- conscious British characters who have to remember their social standing. And it is hard to play character's who have to say a lot without saying anything at all with regards to burgeoning romantic feelings. Neither are bad, but I wouldn't have said 'Oscar-worthy'.

The rumor-mill is also predicting a Best Director gong for Joe Wright and Best Picture for the film. Well, I can't really wrong the pre-emptive Best Director for Wright. Perhaps its because 'Atonement' sees him coupled with his muse, Ms. Knightley – but it's more likely that Wright is just a very talented director with an eye for atmosphere and understated beauty. A particularly breath-taking scene shows a panoramic view of desolate Dunkirk, over-run by soldiers waiting to go home, it is grandiose, detailed and absolutely magnificent.

The film as a whole however, will be a love/hate affair for many. I personally enjoyed the film, partly because it was a worthy adaptation of a beloved book – but I can admit that it was a little slow. True, outer turmoil is portrayed quite clearly by the war that Wright impressively recreates in London in 1940 and Dunkirk (not through battle scenes however), but so much of the story has to do with internal turmoil that it is sometimes hard to hold interest. However, Wright has to be applauded again for his managing to create suspense in certain scenes I thought would be very tricky to communicate to the audience – in particular, a certain letter writing scene.

The fall-backs of the film may lie in the fact that McEwan's novel is not adaptation friendly. That's not to say it isn't a good book – it is, brilliant even. However, the novel is narrated by an omniscient third person who is able to explain the inner-workings of each character, their motivations and interpretations of events. The narration is an important element to the book since the entire plot revolves around young Briony misinterpreting moments between Robbie and Cecilia. In the film however, Wright tries to position the audience in different frames of mind by showing the same scenes twice. One particular scene is first shown from Briony's perspective – through a window, silently seeing the tail-end of a seemingly heated exchange between her sister and childhood friend, Robbie which she perceives as malicious on Robbie's part. We then see the same scene more intimately and in its entirety, between Cecilia and Robbie and realize the sexual undertones and frustration of feelings unspoken between the characters.

I think my slight disappointment in the film comes from the fact that I did get my hopes up. It is a good film, Oscar-worthy? Only time will tell. I think it will be appreciated more as an artistic endeavor than a drama or love story, and will no doubt earn Joe Wright more critical acclaim and cachets as a director to watch, and rightly so.

Two Days in Paris (2007)

Worth a watch

[8/10 · 22 September 2007]

'2 days in Paris' tells the story of a couple two years into their relationship and two days away from breaking up during the last leg of their romantic European vacation. Having visited Venice, Marion (Julie Delpy) and Jack (Adam Goldberg) decide to spend two days with Marion's parents in her childhood home in Paris before heading home to New York. The film portrays the slow unraveling of Jack and Marion's relationship which, as Marion reveals through her sometime narration, has started to show a few cracks before the events that unfurl in Paris. Jack is a neurotic hypochondriac and very competitive; his insistence on being chief photographer during the holiday gets on Marion's nerves, since she is a professional photographer. But the couple's real problems lie in Jack's jealous streak and Marion's white lies regarding her past relationships which come back to haunt her as Jack is introduced to old friends, old lovers and what he perceives to be Marion's very European and bizarre Laissez-faire attitude toward sex and relationships.

'2 days in Paris' is not breaking any conventions or stepping too far outside of any boxes. To call it a typical romantic comedy set in Paris is a little cheapening though; since the film has many admirable qualities. It is a great voyeuristic look into a relationship meltdown and a fantastic exploration of culture clashing as Jack sometimes panders to the American in Paris cliché and deals with Marion's 'European' approach to sex, claiming that she puts many of her odd character traits down to being 'French'. Though the film does have many admirable qualities, lots of its easy charm comes from the fact that it borrows from a collection of tried-and-tested formula's. A dash of 'the out of towner's' (1970) a compressed, European version of the 2006 hit 'the break-up' and in the cinematography especially, the film that made a Hollywood star of of Delpy, 'Before Sunrise' (1995). Adam Goldberg's Jack also reeks of Woody Allen inspired comedy, and it definitely feels like you are sometimes watching Alvy Singer struggle through a Paris vacation, and all the conflict that that entails. That 'Annie Hall' (1977) comparison being said, the best thing about '2 days in Paris' is Goldberg. Having had fairly minor roles in great films such as 'Saving Private Ryan' and 'A Beautiful Mind', 2 days shows that Goldberg is definitely leading man material. Playing a very frustrating, neurotic character did not diminish Goldberg's likability and Woody Allen inspired it may be, Goldberg does a great job with the comedy. Delpy is a little bland and typical in the role, it's not as though its a real stretch for her – but the chemistry between her and real life ex boyfriend, Goldberg is genuine and although its clear Marion and Jack are a train wreck, you cant help but root for them. German heart-throb Daniel Bruhl also stars for a worthless few minutes, which is such a shame (and in keeping with his 'Bourne Ultimatum' blink and you'll miss appearance too!).

This is a good film. Unfortunately the fact that it has subtitles and is another one of those romantic comedies in Paris featuring a neurotic American means the movie-goers who should watch this, and would find the funny in the 'oh so true' comedy, probably won't bother with it. Which is a shame. Though its nothing terribly original '2 days in Paris' is worth a watch, if only for Adam Goldberg's great performance.

Factory Girl (2006)

No insights or revelations, just rumor and speculation

[4/10 · 15 July 2007]

George Hickenlooper 2006 film 'Factory Girl' tells the story of socialite turned Andy Warhol darling, Edie Sedgwick – specifically the film concentrates on Sedgwick dropping out of college in 1965 and journeying to New York where she gets swept up in Warhol's factory life. Sedgwick (Sienna Miller), a magnetic sweetheart with chandelier earrings, panda eyes and a definite air of old money about her has Andy Warhol (Guy Pearce) completely enchanted and for a little while he concentrates all of his artistic pursuits around her. While in 'the factory' – Warhol's cool art space loft, Sedgwick tries to keep up with the assortment of crazy factory characters and their drug-taking escapades. At the height of his obsession with her however, Warhol is crushed to see Sedgwick begin to fall in love with up and coming musician Billy Quinn (Hayden Christensen) and their odd relationship takes a turn for the worst, with Sedgwick suffering the consequences of Warhol's jealous scorn.

Hickenlooper's film attempts to flesh out the bewildering and enchanting Edie Sedgwick – a woman whose celebrity lives on long after her 1971 death. Sedgwick has been cropping up quite a lot lately in current popular culture, at a time when fashion is once again all about the vintage and retro, fashionistas have been looking back to one of the original Manhattan socialites whose style could even rival that of beloved Carrie Bradshaw. Tights and over-sized jumpers, caked on black eyeliner, big earrings – it was all Edie's doing. Comparisons have been drawn between Edie and a few current celebrities, such as Paris Hilton. Both being old money socialites who became famous for doing, nothing much really. Of course Edie appeared in numerous Andy Warhol films and photograph's, but it was her beauty that captivated him. And Paris Hilton.... well, all she has to do is strike a pose (or drive without a license) and she makes the cover of a magazine.

All of this current fascination with the enigmatic figure of Edie Sedgwick has led to this film being made – and you can understand Hickenlooper's thinking that Edie is an interesting enough character that a film about her life will draw audiences in. However, watching 'Factory Girl' you realize how difficult it is to actually create a film about Miss Sedgwick, since so little is known about her, she really was a mystery. The film concentrates on her meeting Andy Warhol, being swept up in the factory life and her brief romance with Bob Dylan (a not so clever pseudonym of 'Billy Quinn' in the film, as per Bob Dylan's request – which is entirely fruitless and very uncool, IMO). The film could not be a rigid biography, since as I said, so little is known about Sedgwick – instead the story is created from Andy Warhol quotes about his muse and public rumor and speculation about her romance with Bob Dylan (the song 'leopard skin pill box hat' is supposedly about Edie). And it shows that the film has no real rock foundation. Edie's history with her father who sexually abused her as a young girl is repeatedly mentioned, but never explored in depth. Warhol's jealousy about her relationship with Bob Dylan is presented as being the reason for his dismissal of her, and in turn the beginning of her downward spiral in facing a life without Warhol – but this explanation seems inadequate.

Sienna Miller does a competent job as the interesting 'it' girl – which mustn't have been too much of a stretch for Miller, since she herself became an 'it' girl when she started dating actor Jude Law and suddenly her outfits were in every women's magazine. She has the voice and gestures of Edie down-pat, and by God she does have an eerie resemblance to her – but the performance is nothing spectacular, thanks in large part to a script that skims over the top of any emotional exploration of Edie's persona. Guy Pearce as Andy Warhol is magnificent. Warhol actually has a lot more depth than Edie in the film, it's a small thing, but much is made of his skin problem and the idea he has of himself as 'ugly' and therefore unlovable. Pearce has Warhol down to a tee, and his performance is fascinating. Hayden Christensen isn't worth much, once again because of poor character development, but in the end I just really could not stand his character. The filmmakers tried to soften up Bob Dylan a little bit, for one thing they had Edie and Dylan break up before she finds out about his secret wedding (which it is implied took place shortly after their break up, not while they were dating) but this minor change does nothing to make the character of Billy Quinn any more likable.

All in all the film's pitfall is that it offers us nothing new about Edie. It is nothing but the basic facts of her life that at this point, most people know about. It is based on rumor and speculation and does not go any further into her life. In fact, the film highlights its own pitfall – that it tells the story of a period in Edie's life that has lost interest for people because they have already heard or read so much about it already. At the end of the film, a small caption tells us that Edie married one Michael Post in 1971, a fellow rehab patient, and died that same year at the age of 28. That would have made for a more interesting film. I doubt many people know of that marriage or what happened in the last year of her life to finally drive her to suicide, accidental or otherwise.

Basically, 'Factory Girl' is a forgettable film about a fascinating celebrity.

The Invisible (2007)

Mediocrity, anyone?

[5/10 · 8 June 2007]

Nick Powell (Justin Chatwin) is a graduating senior with lofty ambitions of defying his over-bearing mother (Marcia Gay Harden) and flying to London for a writer's workshop. The day before leaving, Nick tries unsuccessfully to help out his friend Pete (Chris Marguette) who has failed to make a repayment to the school's femme fatale delinquent, Annie Newton (Margarita Levieva) who has troubles of her own. A crappy home-life ever since her mother died, Annie has to look out for her little brother while dealing with her lazy step-mother. On top of that, Annie carries out carjackings and reckless jewelery heists with her boyfriend on parole, Marcus (Alex O'Loughlin). When Annie gets busted for a robbery she assumes Pete and Nick were behind a phone call to the police, proceeding to terrorize Pete and sick her side-kicks onto Nick. During the beat-up however, Annie loses her cool and apparently kills Nick. Panicked, Annie orders her two male accomplices and Pete to hide Nick's body in the forest and lie low while the police conduct a search for him. But here's the 'twist' – Nick isn't dead. His spirit, soul or whatever is wandering around, the world is oblivious to him. After an encounter with a revived bird, Nick realizes he isn't dead, but rather in limbo. In the forest, he is still alive, and now his wandering soul has to try and save his physical body from dying.... to do this he 'haunts' Annie, waiting for guilt to sink in and for his murderer to turn herself in.

Loosely based on a novel by Swedish author Mats Wahl – the plot itself has been done before (and better) in the 1990 hit film 'Ghost'. That being said, the film has some small admirable qualities. Kudos has to go to director David Goyer for trying a different technique with the living dead thing. Instead of Nick being unable to touch objects, or having people walk straight through him, Goyer incorporated some impressive camera tricks so that every time Nick touches something, it does move but in a split second replaces itself as though undisturbed. Greatly illustrated in a scene at school when Nick throws a book into a shelf, only to look down and see the book still resting on the table and the shelf intact.

Otherwise the film is pretty mediocre. The soundtrack is well suited to any Grey's Anatomy episode, which is not a good thing. Snow Patrol, Death Cab for Cutie – it's all very 'now' and melancholy. Justin Chatwin, who had a role in the film 'War of the Worlds' and a one-off in TV show 'Lost' is a fairly magnetic leading man. It would help if the character of Nick had some endearing qualities – but unfortunately the side story about his father dying when he was young just isn't enough to make you warm to the pretentious sad-sap. A real problem is the character of Annie. Perhaps a lot of back-story about her home life was cut out, because what is offered about her is not enough to justify her criminal behavior; and it is clear that this is a story of redemption, the audience is waiting with Nick for Annie to grow a conscience and while we wait scenes are offered to make us warm to her... but it just does not work. As Nick says to the un-hearing Annie "Your mom dies and your dad marries somebody else, and that makes it okay?". It doesn't and we cant believe that it does. Furthermore, Margarita Levieva is just too 'pretty' to play such a bad-ass no-hoper. She whips off her black beanie to reveal wicked ringlet hair and all believability of this girl as a murdering thief just go right out the window.

And on a side-note: I don't understand why there was an instant police search for Nick who had not been missing for the required 48 hours? His mother presses the police to begin a full-scale search because Nick usually phones her if he will be out late – but he bought a plane ticket to London, and although she checks and discovers he did not use it, isn't that evidence that he was ready to pack up and leave home?

Another qualm I have is with the editing. Too quick and choppy (especially in the beginning, explaining Nick and Annie's stories), there is no fluency between scenes and I felt somewhat disorientated trying to work out where the scene had suddenly jumped to and which story I was now following.

'The Invisible' starts out mediocre and ends cornily. Hire it on DVD only if there is absolutely nothing else of interest, but be prepared for something pretty uneventful and forgettable.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

So long, farewell, it could have been better....

[6/10 · 26 May 2007]

Pirates of the Caribbean 'At World's End' is the final installment of Gore Verbinski's Pirates films – wrapping up the story of Jack Sparrow, Elizabeth Swann, Will Turner, Captain Barbosa and Davy Jones.

The film picks up pretty much where 'Dead Man's Chest' finished off. Jack is lost to Davy Jones's locker. Will still assumes that Elizabeth wants to rescue Jack because she loves him. Will is still determined to save his father, Boot-strap Bill, from spending an eternity as apart of Jones's ship. Cutler Beckett has plans to blow all pirates out of the seven seas for good. Barbosa wants the black pearl back. And this is where 'At World's End' begins... well actually the journey starts off in Singapore, with the crew meeting pirate King Sao Feng (Yun-Fat Chow) and asking for his help in defeating Beckett....

The beginning of the film is somewhat Sparrow-free, and therefore lacking. In fact, the first 2 hours are pretty lacking as there is a concentration on uninteresting subplots that have nothing to do with Jack Sparrow and everything to do with making the first half of the film a wee bit tedious. The first 2 hours covers a very complex sub-plot about Davy Jones and Calypso (Naomie Harris) that is very predictable and very badly wrapped up in the end, making the whole thing a bit pointless really. Then there is the other plot about the brethren of pirate lords who have to join forces to defeat Beckett, unleash Calypso..... and yeah, I really cant explain what those 2 sub-plots were about because I have positively no idea. You really get the sense that the writers were extremely rushed in churning out this final pirates (written, I assume, simultaneously with 'Dead Man's Chest') and as a result the first 2 hours are a convoluted mix-match of stories thrown together to thicken out the film. Let's be honest, the Pirates films are so beloved because of one man, Johnny Depp. This is no secret. When Jack Sparrow isn't on the screen you are wondering "when is Jack coming back? Is he coming back soon?". So it's a fair sure thing that any Pirates plot that isn't centered around Sparrow is not going to hold audience interest for too long. Essentially it is the last hour of the film that is really important. Forget the rest, sneak in after 2 hours and you are good to go. This is when all the action takes place, and it is brilliant. Verbinski is in his directorial element in the ship scenes; and the third installment does not leave the audience wanting in that department. A Western style show-down on the seven seas between Davy Jones's the flying Dutchman, Sparrow's Black Pearl and Beckett's Endeavor is brilliant, large-scale mastery. Boom goes the dynamite.

The other big story that is wrapped up is that of Elizabeth Swann and Will Turner. Personally, a little too cheesy for my liking, made even cornier by the soap-opera acting style of Orlando Bloom, the quintessential buccaneer. Be sure to stay for the end credits, as there is a bonus scene tucked in for the Elizabeth/Will shippers.

The Pirates movies have become to this Generation Y of movie-goers what 'The Godfather' trilogy was to Generation X – something we hold very close to our hearts. Repeating the lines again and again, 'Savvy' has pretty much become the 'I made him an offer he couldn't refuse' quint-essential quote. Johnny Depp's iconic Jack Sparrow sway is Marlon Brando's cotton-mouthed jowls – and everyone has an impersonation up their sleeve. So of course, the finale to the Pirates phenomenon is going to be a big deal. Unfortunately, the final installment doesn't really deliver the goods. Jack Sparrow has more slap-stick comedy moments than brilliant one-liners and Johnny Depp isn't really able to work any physical comedy routines, which is a shame, his human skewer in 'Dead Man's Chest' was brilliant. Clearly the third film is skating on thin ice, ideas are being stretched and the third script is no match for 'Curse of the Black Pearl's' concise story-telling, witty brilliance; 'At World's End' is far more convoluted and sloppy. Regardless, the Pirates films have become a real phenomenon; they will be on many people's 'favorite films of all time' list and there is no excuse if you have seen and enjoyed the first two to not see how it all ends in 'At World's End'. You just have to, savvy?

Becoming Jane (2007)

It's all been done.

[4/10 · 31 March 2007]

I confess to knowing very little about Jane Austen, except that she is the creator of Mr. Darcy, whom Colin Firth portrayed beautifully in a BBC adaptation of 'Pride & Prejudice', doing a particularly good job in a certain pond-diving scene.... That being said, I knew enough tidbits about Jane Austen to know that Julian Jarrold's film 'Becoming Jane', written by Kevin Hood and Sarah Williams – took quite a few liberties with the truth. I realize 'Becoming Jane' is not a rigid biopic, and the writers I am sure assumed that their audience would not take their tale for fact – however, my problem with their artistic license is the fact that it wasn't very original.

Hood and Williams have taken small bits of fact and made them significant in the life of Jane Austen. The entire film centers around her 'relationship' with Tom Lefroy – a law student entirely dependent on his uncle who sends him to stay with family in the countryside in an effort to tame his wild ways. A simple internet search reveals that the relationship Hood and Williams would have us believe was a pivotal turning point in the life of Jane Austen, providing her with a muse for one very famous Mr. Darcy, was no more than a casual flirtation, if that. It can never be known for sure how important Tom Lefroy was to young Jane Austen, especially since after her death her sister Cassandra burnt many of her letters written at the time of their meeting. However, Lefroy is mentioned in at least two surviving letters between Jane and her sister; one dated January 9th 1796 and the next January 16th, in which she writes (sarcastically?) "Friday. -- At length the day is come on which I am to flirt my last with Tom Lefroy, and when you receive this it will be over. My tears flow as I write at the melancholy idea". In 'Becoming Jane' however, Lefroy and Jane become prematurely engaged, are torn apart by family, status and money; try to elope but ultimately part ways. This is not giving anything away; since history tells us Jane Austen never married (I was surprised though when in the cinema people were gasping during Tom and Jane's 'getaway', were they really in suspense as to how the story would end?). It is implied that Tom Lefroy was a great impact on Austen's writing; not only offering her book recommendations but also in their not so happily ever after fairy-tale romance. This, coupled with her sister Cassandra's untimely loss of a fiancée to yellow fever, all account for the all too convenient and happy endings Austen's protagonists meet in her novels; proclaiming, "My characters... shall have all that they desire".

Honestly, I have no problem with movies taking liberties with the facts for art's sake. My problem is that Hood and Williams molded these facts to fit the framework of 'Pride and Prejudice'; which is such an easy route to take. It certainly feels as though 'Becoming Jane' is riding on the coat-tails of Joe Wright's successful 'Pride and Prejudice' adaptation of 2005, but failing miserably to live up to that film's brilliance. Everything from 'Becoming Jane's' movies posters to the soundtrack are a rip-off of Wright's 'Pride and Prejudice'. Jane Austen is such an interesting historic character; she was a feminist for her times, and her writing has indeed transcended time. Why must we have a film about her in which a man determines the course of her life? I wonder what the real Jane Austen would think of a film all about how writing was a 'fall-back' when happily ever after fell through? Why did there have to be a love interest at all? I for one would have been happy with a film that was all about social status in the 17th century and women's roles in society – with no love stories whatsoever. Wouldn't it have been ironic bliss to have a film about the real Jane Austen, who wrote one of the world's best love stories, to contain no romantic notions at all?

I don't know what to say about the actual look of the film since, like so many other things, it's all been done before really. It has the same look and feel of Wright's 'Pride and Prejudice', and the 1996 'Emma' and the 1995 'Sense and Sensibility'. It's all been done (and better) before.

Everyone is raving about Anne Hathaway in this so-so film. Yes, she has a competent accent, but I personally don't see what all the fuss is about (and this isn't because I was one of those nit-pickers who were appalled at the thought of a yank playing an English icon). To be fair, the script doesn't give her a lot to work with; she's really just trying to live up to Keira Knightley's Oscar nominated performance as Elizabeth Bennett, and in comparison Anne Hathaway falls dismally short. I was really disappointed that Jame McAvoy (a rising star who I have adored since seeing him in the deliciously funny 'Shameless' back in 2004) wasn't a stand-out. But once again, the script offers little for him to really sink his teeth into. Tom Lefroy is written as such a flat, 2-D, typical love interest, not even the brilliant McAvoy can do much with the character (and on a side-note, I hated how badly Tom Lefroy aged – those gray mutton chops, eek!).

Over all I can describe the film in one word; 'bland'. See it to drool over the lovely James McAvoy, but otherwise go and watch Joe Wright's 2005 'Pride and Prejudice'. I am just holding on hope that one day a really great biopic (minus any love interest) of Jane Austen will be made to wash out the bad taste that 'Becoming Jane' leaves behind.

Marie Antoinette (2006)

Phenomenal

[8/10 · 12 March 2007]

Marie Antoinette was just 14 when she arrived at Versailles and married Louis XVI. She reached infamy for bankrupting France and became the most famous victim of the French Revolution, beheaded at the age of 37. Marie Antoinette led a most notorious and lavish life, forever in the spotlight; criticized for her spending on extravagant dresses and hair-pieces, not consummating her marriage to Louis for seven years and consequently not producing a male heir until the age of 24. Versailles was always ablaze with rumors ranging from talk about Antoinette's male conquests to the idea that she was an Austrian spy – and then there were the malicious tall-tales produced by the revolutionaries outside of Versailles, 'let them eat cake'. Marie Antoinette is one of the most fabulously interesting historic characters to have ever walked on this earth – so it is no wonder that her story transcends time and should be told by one of America's newest young writing and directing talents, Sofia Coppola.

First and foremost it should be understood that Coppola has not made an historically accurate film. She never had any intention of doing so. The accents are haphazard – Kirsten Dunst's American accent for Marie, Judy Davis's faux French for Comtesse de Noailles, Steve Coogan's Manchester twang as Ambassador Mercy.... furthermore certain parts of Marie's life are omitted, such as the affair of the necklace or the death of her two youngest children not long before the revolution forced her out of Versailles. And there are many more discrepancies both major and minor that critics and historians were up in arms about when this film was released in 2006. Sofia Coppola did not make a biopic of Marie Antoinette, she merely tried to relate a modern audience to a French queen living a lavish and fantastic though fleeting life in the 17th century, and surprisingly, Coppola achieves this.

Marie Antoinette lived a life that today is incomprehensible. It was a life of debauchery and duty, of ritual and mindlessness, tradition and revolution. Sofia Coppola's 'Marie Antoinette' does not relish telling the story of the French revolution; there is a scene in which Louis (Jason Schwartzman) agrees to send funds to America upon the advice of his ministers, and Marie makes a comment to her friends about the nonsense the papers are printing, in particular reference to a comment she supposedly made of 'let them eat cake'. At the end of the film we do see the angry mob that marched on Versailles and forced Marie and Louis to leave for Paris, but otherwise the politics are left out.

The film is about Marie – the complete overhaul of her life from Austria to France, her trying to fit into a foreign court and having to become accustomed to the standing customs and protocols of Versailles. A scene in which Marie has to get dressed by the ladies of her court according to which woman has the most prestigious title is fantastic, as is the monotony of dining with the king and so forth. It is this mundaneness that Sofia captures so well – translating for a modern audience what this 17th century queen's life would have been like, not the grandiose aspects, but rather the day-to-day routines. And then there is the interesting story of the pressure put upon Marie by her mother and the French people to consummate her marriage and produce an heir – a queen's duty translated to a modern audience in very simple terms, that Marie is not living up to her duties as a wife.

By far the best thing about Coppola's movie is the costumes and set. Special permission was given to film at Versailles (even in the hall of mirrors which is under construction until late 2007!) and Milena Canonero won the Oscar for best costume design. The dresses are a visual delight, and the shoes designed by Manolo Blahnik are to die for! If for no other reason, watch Marie Antoinette to take in the visual splendor of it all. The 80's-inspired soundtrack is also surprisingly charming, it flows throughout the film and is oddly befitting of the lavish lifestyle portrayed.

Perhaps the weak link of the film is Kirsten Dunst. She had to play Marie from her arrival in Versailles at the age of 14 until her departure from Versailles at the age of 34. It was a hard task, which Dunst does not really succeed in representing on film. Though I am only choosing Dunst as the weak-link at a stretch, for the sake of criticism.

To be honest I loved everything about this film – and I really cant understand why the critics hated it so much. I love the off-beat style in which Coppola decided to tell this period drama, with bright costumes, an 80's soundtrack and a focus on the mundane and routine in Marie-Antoinette's life. From the reviews that I read, most critics wanted more of a political context about one of the French Revolution's most fascinating players, but I like the route Coppola took in communicating a story about a teenager who become a queen at the worst possible time of upheaval. Brilliant.

Bobby (I) (2006)

I expected more

[6/10 · 11 March 2007]

The film, written and directed by Emilio Estevez, follows many and varied characters staying or working at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles on June 5th, 1968 – the day before Robert F. Kennedy is assassinated by Sirhan Sirhan.

The characters aren't really connected, except for the fact that they are all in the same place and witness what is to become a tragic event in American history. Paul (William H. Macy) is the hotel manager married to hotel hair-dresser Miriam (Sharon Stone) but having an affair with switchboard operator, Angela (Heather Graham). Timmons (Christian Slater) is the racist manager of the kitchen staff which is primarily made up of Latino, Mexican and black workers – including Edward Robinson (Laurence Fishburne) and Jose (Freddy Rodriguez). John (Anthony Hopkins) is the retired door-man of the Ambassador meeting with his friend Nelson (Harry Belafonte) for a standing game of chess and to talk about getting old. Samantha (Helen Hunt) and Jack (Martin Sheen) are on their second honeymoon but are experiencing marital difficulties. Tim Fallon (Emilio Estevez) is long-suffering husband to washed up songstress Virginia Fallon (Demi Moore), there to introduce Robert Kennedy when he makes his campaign speech. Diane (Lindsay Lohan) is a June bride, marrying William (Elijah Wood), a boy from her graduating class to ensure that he is sent to Germany and not Vietnam when his name is inevitably called up. Dwayne (Nick Cannon) and Wade (Joshua Jackson) are on the Kennedy campaign staff, bossing around the likes of Jimmy (Brian Geraghty) and Cooper (Shia LaBeouf), lowly volunteers. While Lenka Janacek (Svetlana Metkina ) is a journalist from Czechoslovakia trying to get an interview with Kennedy.

And then there is Robert F. Kennedy himself. While there is no actor to play the other Kennedy brother, there is news reel footage and sound bites interwoven throughout the film; his 'mindless menace of violence' speech replayed in full toward the end of the film.

Criticism of this film has centered on two main points of annoyance – that there are too many story lines and not enough focus on RFK. These are both very true and fair points. There are too many characters who aren't interesting enough to warrant a presence in the film. William H. Macy's manager, his mistress Heather Graham and wife Sharon Stone, Demi Moore's famous alcoholic singer and weary husband Emilio Estevez, troubled married couple Helen Hunt and Martin Sheen and Laurence Fishburne's wise chef. Those plots are the ones that make the film drag, and the transition between stories seem jarring and disconnected. The best stories are those more closely related to the Kennedy campaign. Wade (Joshua Jackson) and especially Dwayne (Nick Cannon) have one of the most interesting stories; Wade has to tell a Czech journalist that she won't get an interview with Kennedy because of her communist/socialist country and paper, both Wade and Dwayne joke about being offered positions of power when Kennedy is elected but then have a very intriguing and intimate scene in which Dwayne confesses how much hope he has invested in Kennedy, Nick Cannon delivering the best line of the film; "Now that Dr. King is gone, no one left but Bobby - no one".

Jimmy (Brian Geraghty) and Cooper (Shia LaBeouf), the lowly campaign volunteers were my other favorite story. Deciding to blow-off a day of door-knocking to smoke a joint and drop some acid, the two go on a wild rampage but when coming down from their high, experience a moment of sheer panic at the thought that they could have lost Kennedy the election by not knocking on 100 doors or more. Cooper in all seriousness thinks for a moment what a world in which Kennedy didn't win the presidency would be like, "forget it Jimmy, I'm 19. I don't wanna go to Vietnam. Do you?".

Those two small insights were the best thing in the whole film for me – when Nick Cannon's Dwayne and Shia LaBeouf's Cooper admit how much they have invested in Kennedy, when they talk about their disillusionment with the world and their fears that Kennedy won't win.... if the film had have been all about the people who had so much hope when Kennedy came along, only to have their dreams snatched away again, then I think this would have been a much better film.

Some people think that a film all about Robert F. Kennedy would have been more desirable – indeed, listening to Kennedy's 'mindless menace of violence' speech sends shivers down your spine, - but I can understand where Emilio was trying to go with 'Bobby', looking at the 'little people' whose lives Kennedy touched and how he could have changed the course of their own personal history. Unfortunately the film just doesn't reach any sort of pinnacle, it is a great story that is too bogged down with A-list stars and convoluted story lines. Still, this is a great first film for Estevez; all he needs to do for next time is abide by the 'less is more' rule.

Casino Royale (2006)

This film converted me!

[9/10 · 11 January 2007]

I am not, nor have I ever been a James Bond fan. Before 'Casino Royale' I had never watched an entire Bond movie and even though I know the basic trivia (shaken not stirred) I really didn't have a clue about the intricate back-stories of Bond. However, I thoroughly enjoyed 'Casino Royale'.

This film, based on the Ian Fleming novel and adapted for the screen by Neal Purvis, Robert Wade and Paul Haggis, and directed by Martin Campbell – does not expect its audience to be 007-aficionados. If anything, the film caters to those, like me, who are introducing themselves to Bond for the first time with 'Casino Royale'. The writers have taken quite a cue from the likes of Robert Ludlum ('The Bourne Supremacy') and maybe even Christopher Nolan and his 2005 'Batman Begins'. This time around, the Bond creators understand that audiences prefer their heroes to be flawed, dark and able to get down to the nitty-gritty of things. I may not have ever watched a full Bond movie before, but I have channel surfed and lingered long enough to know that the Bond of yesteryear was always suave, always got the girl and always came out on top. This time around James Bond, played daringly well by Daniel Craig, has ambiguous morals. Sure, he wants to stop the terrorists and get the job done – but he doesn't mind making a ruckus while doing it and doesn't bat an eyelid when an innocent dies because of a mistake he made. He also amuses himself by hacking into his own organization's internal system and getting on M's (Jude Dench) nerves. This new and improved Bond also isn't the womanizer he used to be – this time around he starts to warily wear his heart on his sleeve, and is all the better for it.

Daniel Craig received a lot of flak when he was given this role. Bond fans wanted 'Casino Royale' boycott and websites were devoted to petitioning film execs trying to get Craig canned – all because he was blond with blue eyes and not what traditionalist fans considered 'Bond material'. Well the skeptics have been proved incredibly and unequivocally wrong. Craig, despite the clear-blue angel eyes plays a vicious, deceiving, cut-throat Bond… and throughout pretty much the entire film, I was not entirely sure I even liked him; to be honest he was a bit scary and menacing – which was great! The fight scenes were spectacular (you would expect nothing less in this day and age) and the Montenegro setting was phenomenal.

I am a girl. I am not a Bond fan…. And yet I loved 'Caisno Royale' and will definitely be waiting in anticipation for 2008's 'Bond 22'.

The Holiday (2006)

Embarrassment of the 'chick-flick' genre

[1/10 · 11 January 2007]

Amanda in L.A (Cameron Diaz) is an emotionally retarded workaholic who has just kicked her boyfriend (Edward Burns) out for cheating on her with his secretary. Iris (Kate Winslet) in Surrey, England is a writer for a London newspaper and has just been delivered the biggest blow at an office Christmas party when it is announced that the ex-boyfriend (Rufus Sewell) who she is still madly in love with, has become engaged to the woman with whom he cheated on Iris with three years ago. Both women find themselves at an utter loss. Iris mopes about her little cottage, near suicidal, while Amanda desperately wants to prove something to herself and her ex – namely that she can relax, cry, and be happily alone. Amanda's solution? A holiday. She finds a website where people swap houses for 2 weeks and decides that Surrey is the perfect place for a vacation, choosing to swap her L.A mansion for Iris's quaint 'Rosehill Cottage'. In Surrey Amanda meets Iris's handsome, drunkard older brother, Graham (Jude Law) and Iris meets the best friend of Amanda's ex, music composer Miles (Jack Black)… and you can most definitely guess the rest.

This is an atrocious film. And what makes this film all the worse is the irony of a character called Arthur Abbott (Eli Wallach) who is Amanda's next door neighbor in L.A and fast becomes companion to Iris. What's funny is that Abbott plays a man who was a screen-writer during Tinsletwon's hey-day. Abbott prescribes fantastic classics for Iris to watch and appreciate and in one scene lets out a great long spiel about how awful today's cinema is; specifically that box-office and blockbusters hinder creativity. Was writer/director Nancy Meyers shooting herself in the foot or what!?

It's not just that 'The Holiday' is predictable to the point of boredom. Chick-flicks are usually predictable, but that doesn't mean they can't still be good…. Take 'Bridget Jones's Diary', for example. Everyone knew that book was based on Jane Austen's 'Pride and Prejudice' and therefore that Bridget wins Mr. Darcy in the end… but it's still a bloody good chick-flick, even though the ending, and in fact the entire plot is some 194 years old. The film's plot leaves a lot to be desired. For one, it's not particularly encouraging to women, which is surprising since it was written by a woman (the same woman who wrote 'Something's Gotta Give', no less) – the whole story hinders on this idea that even though Amanda and Iris are both successful working women, they are lacking because they don't have a man in their lives. Amanda's boyfriend cheats on her and instead of rejecting his claims that it was her, who deliberately sabotaged the relationship (forcing him to cheat?) she privately agrees with his claims and unintentionally sets out to try and be the sort of woman he wished she was.

No, 'The Holiday's' failure does not solely lie in its plot, a lot of the film's faults have to do with the cast. Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet, both actresses who have proved in previous films that they do indeed have acting chops, both over-act. Diaz more than Winslet, but the over-acting is completely and utterly cringe-worthy. Honestly, watching Diaz jump around hysterically after punching her boyfriend in the face, I felt nauseous. And what really didn't help matters was the fact that these characters were specifically written by Nancy Meyers with Law, Diaz, Winslet and Black in mind. The result is a mixed caricature of each actor, compiled of previous film roles and media persona's. Cameron Diaz plays the breezy goof-ball slash every man's ideal woman; hints of her from 'There's something about Mary' and 'in her shoes' shine through. Iris seems more inspired by the real-life Winslet, as Iris is self-deprecating and entirely modest. Jude Law's Graham also seems to have been created with a great deal of influence from the actor's real life – as a womanizing drunkard in the beginning, but then becoming a sort of 'fantasy' of what his female fans wish the real Law was, a sexy wounded white knight with demons in his closet who just needs to be saved by a beautiful maiden. Jack Black of course plays the clown, though in this he seems to be going through the motions, and his 'comedy' is hollow for it.

This is a really, really awful film. I thought, in the last half hour or so, some tragedy would befall one of the pretty couples: perhaps one of the relationships would be abandoned, or the old man would die…. Nope. I won't be spoiling anything for you when I say that there is a happy ending (well, theoretically speaking… Lord knows I didn't come out of this film 'happy'). Perhaps the film could have been salvaged with entirely different casting, or if the story was a bit more balanced – though it is meant to be about both women, we mainly follow Diaz & Law, who had the most banal storyline of the two.

So, so bad – don't even bother hiring it on DVD when it comes out.

Robin Hood (2006–2009)

Eventually won me over...

[7/10 · 31 December 2006]

After the first 15 minutes of the BBC's new drama 'Robin Hood', I was pretty much certain that I wouldn't go further than the first episode. Robin (Jonas Armstrong), back from the Crusades in Jerusalem is coming home to Locksley, along with is ex-servant and friend, Much (Sam Troughton). They make a pit-stop on their journey home, to help a blacksmith in return for food... and a roll in the hay with his bosomy daughter who looks like she just stepped out of a Justin Timberlake music video. Riiight. Then came a dodgy back-flip, some ridiculous one-liner and I was thoroughly unimpressed.

I know a thing or two about the legend of Robin Hood. As a kid the Disney version (yep the sing-along with the fox as Robin) was a favorite, and when I was about 6 and went on a trip to England, my family and I made a pit-stop in Nottingham, got a photo by the Robin Hood statue and even went on a little Robin Hood ride and walk through Sherwood forest. I was told the stories of Robin Hood, and have a soft spot for the Robin and Marian romance. I felt obligated to give this new BBC drama a try, since everything Robin Hood once fascinated me as a child.

The first episode, as I said, did not inspire confidence. Jonas Armstrong isn't who I picture as Robin Hood. One review described him as being the 'Orlando Bloom' type, one who "hovers somewhere between boyhood and manhood" (Daily Express, September 9, 2006). I had seen Armstrong in the fourth season of 'Teachers' and was not terribly taken by him. But in 'Robin Hood', Armstrong is initially hard to swallow as the hooded crusader, but this isn't entirely his fault. Robin initially comes across as a cocky, womanizing lad with a hefty ego, and it wasn't until about the third episode that I actually started to warm to him. What made sure I came back to watch the second, third and eventually entire series of this show was Lucy Griffiths as Maid Marian and Keith Allen as the deliciously ruthless Sheriff of Nottingham.

Newcomer, 19 year-old Lucy Griffith's Marian has dropped the 'maid' and follows the lead of 21st century female TV heroines such as Buffy, Veronica Mars and Rose Tyler... which isn't surprising, the show could not have worked with a wimpy and weak Marian. Griffiths and Armstrong do have a great chemistry as well, despite the fact that the dialogue between Marian and Robin is sometimes corny ("kiss it better?") there is a spark, and that's enough to keep the Marian/Robin romance interesting for me. Even more so is the fact that in this updated version, Marian does not welcome Robin home with open arms. He left her 5 years ago to fight for glory and King Richard in the Holy lands, and she is still feeling the sting of his desertion.

Keith Allen plays a fantastically villainous Sheriff, who sometimes reminds me of Tim Curry, and is always entertaining. Richard Armitage plays Guy of Gisborne, the Sheriff's right hand man and the new lord of Robin's Locksley manor. To top it off, Gisborne is in tough pursuit of Marian, adding an extra layer of intensity to his dueling with Robin.

This show has been commissioned partly due to the huge success of the resurrected 'Doctor Who', and while it isn't quite on-par with the genius of Russell T. Davies's show, 'Robin Hood' is worth a try. At times the production value leaves you wanting, the stunts can be laughable and the acting a little wooden. It isn't really until the seventh episode "Brothers in Arms" that things really start to pick up with the drama and story lines, and from seven onwards it is a brilliant roller-coaster ride sure to make the previous six lack-luster episodes worth the watch.

Borat (2006)

Hype = Hollow

[4/10 · 31 December 2006]

So much has been said about Sacha Baron Cohen's controversial and successful comedy "Borat: Cultural learning's of America for make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan": there have been lawsuits; Cohen has been involved in physical altercations with people who didn't like the film and 'Borat' had the biggest box-office opening weekend for any film that opened in fewer than a thousand theaters. But I personally didn't like it.

I was a big fun of Cohen's 'Da Ali G Show', and expected to love the film as much as every review I read seemed to. Sadly, I think the hype didn't help my viewing.

People are now calling Cohen a comic genius for playing on the ignorance of the American people (I'll admit, I thought Kazakhstan was a fictional place before this film came out) and putting them in outrageously uncomfortable situations and using their ignorance to trap them and reveal true bigotry and xenophobia. Cohen has been nominated for a Golden Globe award in the category of 'Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy'. Alright, but I suspect that nomination comes more from the popularity of the film than the weight of Cohen's performance. Really, 'Borat' and Cohen's 'mocumentary' style cannot be hailed as comic genius; not when the film involves a lengthy naked man wrestle between Borat and his overweight and hairy manager, Azamat (Azamat Bagatov). Really, 'Borat' may be amusing, eye-opening, and will definitely elicit a laugh or two, but what Cohen does is no more comic genius than what the Jackass boys do, eating yellow snow and such. It's all for cheap laughs... and when you've heard about all the outrageousness and read descriptions of certain scenes that have now landed Cohen a few lawsuits, watching "Borat: Cultural learning's of America for make benefit glorious nation of Kazakhstan" becomes a pretty hollow experience. I feel like I laughed more just hearing and reading about the film than when I actually sat down and watched it.

Mumford (1999)

A great little find

[8/10 · 15 October 2006]

Dr. Mickey Mumford (Loren Dean) is a psychologist who ironically lives and works in the town of Mumford. Among his clientele are local chemist Henry Follett (Pruitt Taylor Vince) whose tasteful sexual fantasies have ruined his marriage, image-obsessed teen Nessa Watkins (Zooey Deschanel), kleptomaniac house-wife Althea Brockett (Mary McDonnell) and lonely billionaire Skip Skipperton (Jason Lee), whose electronics business keeps the town afloat. Mickey Mumford and his highly unorthodox techniques are extremely successful, but things begin to change and get complicated when he takes Sofie Crisp (Hope Davis) on board as a client and falls in love with her, while trying to cure her sleep deprivation.

'Mumford', written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan (The Bodyguard, The Big Chill) is a surprisingly great film. Really, this is just a very well-told story. Dr. Mumford's curious cases pull the film along, but those fragmented stories really wouldn't have been enough for 99 minutes… so when the film's big twist comes mid-way, it's a smooth transition from examining Mumford's patients and their crises to watching the problems of the doctor himself, and the way's he tries to deal with them.

Loren Dean, while not the typically charismatic protagonist, is oddly interesting as the humble and odd psychologist; and really does communicate a very relaxed persona, making it easy to see why people feel the need to confide in him. Zooey Deschanel is a great little secondary character, totally at ease and entertaining in her role as the off-beat misfit. My one complaint may be that the love story between Dr. Mumford and his patient Sofie isn't executed very well; there really isn't enough screen time given to the development of their budding feelings, and in fact most of their realizations about their feelings for one another come either off-screen or are explored individually, like when Dr. Mumford talks about his feelings for Sofie with patient and friend Skip Skipperton. Furthermore, there isn't much chemistry between Loren Dean and Hope Davis. Between Davis's sleep-deprived, baggy-eyed divorcée, Sofie and Dean's stony-calm Dr. Mumford; the romance is lackluster, at best. The film is only 99 minutes long, and I wish it was longer with more emphasis and development on the Dean/Davis romance.

I really enjoyed this film and was very glad I found it while looking through Zooey Deschanel's filmography. It's just a shame not more people know about it.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

Quirky family road-trip

[10/10 · 15 October 2006]

Olive Hoover (Abigail Breslin) is runner-up in a children's beauty pageant called 'Little Miss Sunshine', and has been invited to the pageant's finals in California. Determined to see her perform, Olive's family all pile into a VW bus and make the long journey…. Olive's father Richard (Greg Kinnear), the motivational speaker who is waiting to hit it big with his 'nine step program', her blunt mother Sheryl (Toni Collette), brother Dwayne (Paul Dano) who has taken a vow of silence until he takes his aviation exam and has communicated by writing on a note-pad for the past eight months. Also tagging along is Olive's beauty pageant coach, and heroin-addict grandfather (Alan Arkin) and uncle Frank (Steve Carrell) who was released from hospital 24 hours ago after a botched suicide attempt brought about when he lost his student lover to the man who has also stripped him of his title as the number one Proust scholar in the country.

'Little Miss Sunshine' is the first full-length feature film for husband and wife director's Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris, who are best known for directing music videos. This is also screen-writer Michael Arndt's first film. The fact that this film has been created by 'fresh-blood' in Hollywood is obvious in the film's extremely fresh take on an old concept: family road-trip.

While publicity for the film has hyped it up as a laugh-out-loud comedy, a notion aided by the presence of Steve Carrell who has hit the big time since completing 'Little Miss Sunshine' with 'The 40 year old virgin' and his lead role in the U.S smash-hit TV show 'The Office'; this film is not as hilarious as I am sure some movie-goers assume it to be. It is a very, very dark comedy, which occasionally slips in a few easy laughs but ultimately finds it's best moments in the more serious scenes, exploring grim issues. This is a fantastically quirky film which will find viewers falling in love with this family of misfits and freaks, and secretly wishing our more ordinary relatives were just as peculiar. As one would expect, the film's conclusion comes at the 'Little Miss Sunshine' beauty pageant. The finale is very much hyped up and delivers, two-fold. The ending at the pageant is exactly the kind of finish that will leave you completely satisfied.

At times, because I was expecting more humor thanks to the film's publicity and hype, I was a little disappointed at the sometimes far and few laughs…. But, eventually letting go of expectation and anticipation, I found myself totally falling in love with this film. Steve Carrell was the stand-out for me, especially since this was a very different character for him, so far from the awkward virgin or hyper squirrel… Steve seems to have become a celebrity overnight, and while he is thus far best known for his comedic work, with 'Little Miss Sunshine' he has managed to do what Bill Murray with 'Lost in Translation', Jim Carrey in 'The Truman show' and Robin Williams in 'Good Will Hunting' took years to do, and that is reach critical as well as commercial acclaim. The other two stand-outs for me are the always brilliant Alan Arkin as the heroin-addicted grandfather who imparts gross and brilliant wisdom, and Paul Dano as the silently suffering teenager.

This really is an amazing film: it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but for me at least, it is going down as a favorite.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)

Satisfying Sequel

[9/10 · 7 July 2006]

The sequel to the 2003 mega-hit 'Pirates of the Caribbean' begins shortly where the first film left off. Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) and Elizabeth Swann's (Keira Knightley) marriage is cancelled when the two, along with Norrington (Jack Davenport) are arrested and set to hang because of their involvement in Captain Jack Sparrow's (Johnny Depp) escape. The arrests seem to be a scheming plan of new character Cutler Beckett (Tom Hallander) who offers Will and Elizabeth a pardon if Will sets out to find Jack and return with his compass. Jack, meanwhile sailing the high seas, has received some disturbing news from beyond the sea-grave; he has to pay his debt to Davey Jones (played by Bill Nighy) who turned Jack into captain of the black pearl 13 years ago in exchange for his soul. Will Turner gets caught up in Jack's predicament, as does Elizabeth who is hot on the duo's trail, having escaped from prison.

This sequel has received mixed reviews; and it seems there is no middle ground when it comes to audience opinion of 'Dean Man's Chest' – you either love it, or you hate it. I loved it. I wouldn't go so far as to say it was better than the first film, but it was a satisfying sequel that left me anxious for the third and final installment. The CGI effects are phenomenal, Johnny Depp is (as always) an absolute delight to watch and the film really does very nicely set-up the storyline for the third sequel 'At World's End' (2007).

'Dead Man's Chest' is notably darker than the 'Curse of the Black Pearl' – there's more horror, gross-out moments and violence – it isn't over the top, the darkness actually adds a mature angle to the film, and makes it stand out from the original. Where 'Curse of the Black Pearl' was decidedly family-friendly, 'Dead Man's Chest' is aiming for an older demographic.

There weren't as many laughs in this film as there were in the original, and there are less quotable lines – understandably the best laugh out loud moments come from Johnny Depp, who is able to once again reveal the depths of his talent and show what an able comedian he is. Depp has particularly impressive command over physical comedy (as was evident in 'Curse of the Black Peal', but is absolutely fantastic in 'Dead Man's Chest'). Though they both really rose to fame because of 'Curse of the Black Pearl', Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom (especially Bloom) are no match for Johnny Depp who is the real power-house of the franchise. The writers clearly understand what an iconic character Jack Sparrow has become, with his own cult following and fandom; thus certain story lines are added to satisfy the throngs of Sparrow fans (like the tension between Jack and Elizabeth) and Johnny is given ample opportunity to give the audience everything they loved about Jack in the original, ten times over in the sequel. Which is great – Johnny Depp is responsible for making these films what they are.

All in all a very satisfying sequel – not as great as the original, but plenty of Jack Sparrow screen time, a darker angle and fantastic lead-up to the final installment make this a very enjoyable film.

Casanova (2005)

Dazzling Spectacle

[10/10 · 11 June 2006]

Russell T. Davies's "Casanova" is a biopic of the real-life ladies-man from 17th century Venice, the infamous Giacomo Casanova. The 2-part series uses the real Giacomo Casanova's biography "The story of my life" as frame-work. The story is told by Casanova himself (Peter O'Toole), at the age of 73 when he was employed as a librarian for a wealthy nobleman. The aged Casanova tells his story to the curious servant-girl Edith (Rose Byrne) whose father told her tales of Casanova and all his adventures. David Tennant of 'Doctor Who' fame plays the young Casanova, and Shaun Parkes his loyal side-kick, Rocco. By 1750 the real Casanova had worked as a clergyman, secretary, soldier, spy, and violinist and bedded some 122 women. Davies's series touches on Casanova's talents, but at the heart of the old cad's story is his love for the one woman he could never have; Henriette (Laura Fraser), who was engaged to a nobleman in Venice when she and Casanova first meet, and then the two were torn apart when Casanova was imprisoned in 1775. After his famous escape in 1756, the story follows Casanova, Rocco and one of Casanova's many bastard children as they travel around Europe looking for legal pardon while meeting the greatest men and women of the day.

Russell T. Davies is fast making a name for himself; having written for cult television shows like "Queer as Folk" and the current series of "Doctor Who", "Casanova" is another triumph for Davies. The writing is fresh and witty, and extremely well delivered by the irrevocably charming David Tennant, who passes well for the infamous 17th century cad. The best part of the series is the costumes and sets – absolutely over the top and fabulously colorful outfits with modern twists coupled with dazzling, spectacularly lavish sets. It really is a welcome eye-ful.

"Casanova" is an absolutely wonderful 2-part series written by the up and coming Russell T. Davies and starring one of Scotland's best new commodities, David Tennant. Definitely worth a watch.

The Escapist (2002)

Revenge-Driven Thriller

[9/10 · 6 June 2006]

Jonny Lee Miller plays Denis, a rich pilot with a pretty pregnant wife, Valerie (Paloma Baeza) whose life is turned upside down when a thief breaks into their humble home and maliciously shoots Valerie and leaves Dennis to cope with the lasting sadness of her murder. Denis is not satisfied when Valerie's killer, notorious thief Ricky Barnes (Andy Serkis), is thrown into an Alcatraz style prison for 20 years. For Denis, this sentence isn't enough; as he achingly muses, if he were given the option of visiting his wife for 2 hours once a week, a month or even once a year, that would be better than what he has now… nothing. He cannot get past his need for revenge; not even his baby girl, delivered by C-section, can coax him out of this fog. And so he devises a plan to get himself thrown into the same high-security prison as Barnes, and get his revenge.

Revenge is the central theme of this fantastic film, written by Nick Perry and directed by Gillies MacKinnon. It isn't always an edge-of-your-seat drama, more it is an intrinsic look into the creation, hungering and devouring need for revenge…. The high-stakes drama comes in the last half hour or so, when Denis's plan is tangible as he gets thrown into Barnes's prison. The film doesn't try to show that light exists at the end of the tunnel, or that every cloud has a silver lining. Denis's thirst for reprisal is depressing; he has such tunnel-vision that not even his baby girl and the hint of a fresh start can coax him out of his ebb. And the really sad thing is that as we watch Denis strive toward his realized vengeance, we as the viewer know that what comes after he succeeds is not going to be pretty… he will be left with nothing, no life, nothing to drive him, just the realization of all that he has lost. So while rooting for Denis to get payback on the evil Ricky Barnes, there is also a devastating knowledge that things will only get worse from here on in.

Johnny Lee Miller is a relatively unknown actor who never made good on his break-out performance in the film "Trainspotting"; if he is known at all, it is as Angelina Jolie's first ex-husband whom she constantly says she regrets divorcing. Miller doesn't always captivate and command the screen, but he is adequate in this lead role as a tough, driven lover whose sadness is really eating him alive. The real star in this film is the wicked Andy Serkis, best known for his role as Gollum in the Lord of the Rings films and as the monkey in another Jackson film "King Kong". Surprise, surprise; Serkins can actually act sans the tight-blue lycra and CGI wires – his brilliance is measured by his loathsomeness – and trust me, it's always at breaking point!

Great little straight to video gem that would go totally unnoticed if it wasn't always on cable television.

The Da Vinci Code (2006)

A lesson in mediocrity

[3/10 · 27 May 2006]

Yes, the old rule still applies; the book was better than the movie.

Its not that the film was 'bad'. It just wasn't good. Instead it was lackluster, simply going through the motions. Its as though Ron Howard and screen-writer Akiva Goldsman were creating this movie with the assumption that everybody and their grandmother had read Dan Brown's book and really just wanted to see what was on the page translated into images - its as though they knew that nobody expected much more from them than a competent translation from book to film. Unfortunately Tom Hanks in the pivotal role of Robert Langdon does not seem to have translated into most reader's conceptions of Brown's character. I agree with the general consensus on the casting of Tom Hanks; he's too old and not savvy enough; in the book Langdon is described as being like Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones, this is so far from being Tom Hanks its laughable. And it seems Hanks didn't have much confidence in himself either; his apprehension comes across, which means a huge chunk of the Langdon persona is missing from Hanks' portrayal. Most reviews I have read take a bigger bite out of Hanks than what I have just done, while agreeing that Audrey Tautou's talents are underused but she is bearable. Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany have been hailed as the film's saviors; but personally I think all the actors come across as being pretty run of the mill. All are undoubtedly talented; it's just that 'The DaVinci Code' seems to have put them all to sleep.

This is a very long film too; 149 minutes. I was yawning after about 40 minutes. While watching the film I was trying to imagine how someone who had not read the book would perceive the movie. Somehow I doubt it would manage to hold interest. I think the only reason I stayed awake until the end was simply to see how certain scenes translated onto the big screen; the mystery, for anyone who hadn't read the book and knew how all the pieces of the puzzle fit together; wouldn't have been particularly enthralled