rtcnz Reviews

Manchester by the Sea (2016)

Flawless

[10/10 · 4 February 2017]

This film is powerful, sure, very emotional and raw in a lot of ways ... but I actually found myself laughing a lot more than I expected, at the humanness of it all.

It is a long film - 2 hours and 17 minutes or something - but the time disappeared and final credits rolled before I knew it. It is one of those rare films that doesn't feel like a film, so much as real life.

Main character Lee (Casey Affleck) - amazing, speaks volumes when he says nothing, carrying pain - learns that, after his brother's death, he has been named guardian of his 16 year old nephew (Lucas Hedges) - also a very real character, excellent authentic depiction of a 16 year old, even in the way he deals with his father's death.

Michelle Williams is Lee's ex-wife - and even with small amount of screen time, she blows you away, also with the pain she's been carrying. Gretchen Mol and Matthew Broderick are also great in a very awkward but amazingly authentic scene.

So yeah - believe the hype, the film's amazing, gritty, real, emotional - but the humanness of the story will make you smile more than you might expect from the material.

Café Society (2016)

Solid Woody!

[8/10 · 22 October 2016]

I'm a devout Woody Allen fan but even for me there are three categories of Woody films: 1. Perfect, 2. Solid entries in the canon and 3. The 'weaker' films (which are still better than much of the cr@p that gets made).

This one is definitely solid. Great atmosphere, great actors, entertaining story-line. I don't think it breaks barriers but I also don't think it needs to.

Bobby (Jesse Eisenberg) moves to LA to work for his uncle Phil (Steve Carrell). He meets and falls in love with Phil's assistance Vonnie (Kristen Stewart) - who's seeing someone else. Much of the film is around that love triangle.

The start of the film perhaps held the promise of a Perfect Woody Allen film - especially a GREAT scene between Bobby and a novice escort (Anna Camp) who comes over. I actually laughed out loud just thinking about it.

The other characters' story lines feel a bit secondary and under-developed - back in New York, Bobby's family members get not-quite-enough screen time to really feel fleshed out, and yet are focused on enough to start to draw you in. In particular, Bobby's gangster brother Ben (Corey Stoll) ends up being a bit two-dimensional. As Bobby's other love interest, Veronica (Blake Lively) is beautiful but we never really learn much about her, or get much development about their relationship.

These are middling complaints and are really just to explain why this is an 8 and not a 9 or 10. It's a strong entry in Woody's filmography and well worth seeing for Woody fans.

The Hateful Eight (2015)

Utterly captivating but ultimately a bit hollow

[7/10 · 13 February 2016]

As always, Tarantino commands the viewer's attention effortlessly. Once again, there are brilliant characters, snappy dialogue, and violence almost elevated to an art form. It's buckets of fun.

The "hateful eight" aren't good guys. There are two bounty hunters (Jackson, Russell), a criminal on her way to be hung (Jason Leigh), a new sheriff (Goggins), an elderly general who used to be a confederate (Dern), a hangman (Roth) and a 'cowboy' (Madsen). They're trapped in a cabin during a blizzard. And so the premise is, Kurt Russell's bounty hunter says: "One of those men's not who he says he is".

It's a tantalizing mystery, a hook, and I would never spoil anything for anyone. Except to say I sort of expected...more. The entire film is captivating but the first half is perfection; the second half gets a bit messy. It's like an Agatha Christie book - a needlessly convoluted murder plot is revealed... when in fact the whole thing SURELY could've been done a little easier? It gets messy, and even though the last few scenes are a lot of blood-n-guts-y fun, I walked away feel a tiny bit short-changed. Tarantino's earlier two films, Django and Inglourious, always leave me feeling exhausted, elated, inspired, excited. This one left me a bit ... meh.

Still, any Tarantino is better than none at all, and a 7/10 is hardly a bad review. It's hard trying to outdo yourself when you've set the bar too high. I still say this is a must-watch!

Pitch Perfect (2012)

A hugely entertaining and fairly predictable film

[8/10 · 12 April 2013]

Yes, "Pitch Perfect" is full of clichés. Moody rebel Beca reluctantly (Anna Kendrick) joins campus singing group of misfits, led by comically conservative Aubrey (Anna Camp). Despite their shaky beginnings, the misfit singers come together & eventually decide to "be original". But just because it's clichéd doesn't mean "Pitch Perfect" isn't a great film! The film has a great cast full of fun colorful characters. Rebel Wilson in particular is hilarious as "Fat Amy" delivering most if not all the laughs. There's plenty of musical sets, most of which are pretty entertaining. Basically, the film is like an infinitely better, much longer episode of "Glee".

This film delivers exactly what you expect!

Cinema Paradiso (1988)

An above-average film - but a perfect ending.

[8/10 · 2 October 2012]

This is a perfectly pleasant film about the friendship between a mischievous youngster and a weary old film projectionist working at the local cinema. This is also a film about film, a genre which I've always found a bit too self-indulgent.

Except I think this film – about the importance and magic of an actual cinema house – is one that is becoming more and more relevant today. People are going to the cinema less and less frequently – they're downloading films online, with poor quality, not paying, and, importantly, watching them on screens that are getting smaller – or at least thinner – in their own homes. What Cinema Paradiso reminds us of is the magic of leaving the house, paying for a ticket, sitting in a cinema with others, laughing together, being frightened together, getting choked up together.

Nonetheless I still feel that this film is just a "nice" film – for the most part. It's perfectly pleasant and sweet, quite bittersweet in parts. Heartwarming, sure, but is that enough to make this film great? No. What makes this film immensely popular and well-loved, in my opinion, is the very last scene. It is surely among the most brilliant endings to a film I have ever seen. No spoilers here – but, for me, just because the final moments of a film are 10/10, this does not make the film 10/10.

Lawrence of Arabia (1962)

Beautiful, brilliant, and long.

[8/10 · 2 October 2012]

A few years ago, I tried to watch this on DVD on my laptop. I managed to get through about fifteen minutes before I couldn't endure it any further and gave up, but told everyone that I'd watched it but hadn't cared for it.

I recently read Roger Ebert's review of the film and was struck by his insistence that this film can only be watched on the big screen, which I eventually did at the Astor Theatre in Melbourne.

In the first half, I found my breath being taken away by the epic beauty of the film, and found myself delighted by the charismatic and unusual protagonist. I also laughed much more than I expected to. At the intermission, I realized how correct Ebert had been – the epic scale of this film can only be captured on a big screen. I was loving it.

The film resumed for the second half. I was still held by the film but felt that there were a few false endings, when I was expecting it to (finally) wrap up – only to find it starting all over again. That is probably the only thing that detracted from me rating this film a 9 or 10. It's too long for me. I don't have anything against long films if I watch them without checking my watch – like Seven Samurai or Apocalypse Now Redux.

But during this film, I did check my watch during the last forty-odd minutes – which were, I admit, every bit as stunning as the rest.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2 (1986)

Woeful - no redeeming qualities.

[1/10 · 5 August 2012]

Where do I even begin with this trainwreck of a sequel? The original film is brilliantly twisted, horrifying and disturbing - masterful. This film is not scary, twisted or upsetting.

THE SETTING: Leatherface and his sick family have moved out of their house in TCM1 and have relocated at an amusement park! And not just any amusement park, it has seemingly endless lattice of tunnels and brightly-lit caverns underneath. It's hard to feel afraid of what is clearly a bad movie set.

THE VILLAIN: I'll start with Leatherface. In TCM1, Leatherface is a barbaric violent villain, a sick effed-up killing MACHINE. Here, Leatherface wields his chainsaw at a 'pretty' (?) girl, falls in love with her, and becomes a BIG OLD SOFTY. He turns into Ludo the Lovable Oaf from "Labyrinth" (or, for Harry Potter fans, Grawp). I'm sorry but WHAT THE ****? Is this a horror movie or a children's film??? THE HEROINE: Stretch is a radio DJ who wears little denim shorts but as the face of a goat. She is also the stupidest heroine I've ever met in a horror film. She actively pursues the villains to their base, with no plan and without contacting the police, and falls right into their hands. It's hard to care about her suffering when she so clearly deserves it for being such a fool.

THE HERO: Dennis Hopper, like his female counterpart, also decides to take on the villains single-handedly. He buys a bunch of chainsaws and goes after them on his own. Yep - strapping a few chainsaws to your back like Rambo is a GREAT survival technique.

Now, I love horror movies and I LOVE horror sequels - even bad ones. But this is neither good nor so-bad-it's-good. It's just plain bad and most importantly - NOT SCARY.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

Not bad - but definitely overrated

[1/10 · 5 August 2012]

Christopher Nolan knows what he's doing and in The Dark Knight Rises, he does a great job of distracting the viewer from what's really going on. Which is, quite frankly, A MESS.

The 'storyline' is even more sprawling and incoherent than The Dark Knight. It's an extremely lengthy movie and yet because there are an infinite number of plot strands, none of them are involving enough - and there's not really enough time spent on any of the characters, including Bruce Wayne/Batman.

There's one setting - it's a prison, I won't spoil anything - except that the prison feels completely out of place in a Batman movie. The film spends far too long there and it feels like a completely separate film, and in my opinion it would make a great film on its own - but it doesn't fit in this story at all, which should all take place in Gotham.

The main villain Bane (Tom Hardy) is a major disappointment after Heath Ledger's Joker - his face is covered with a mask and his voice is ridiculous.

But like Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, I do feel that there was one redeeming feature to The Dark Knight Rises and that is Anne Hathaway's Catwoman. She's a much-needed breath of fresh air, energy and even comedy in an otherwise uninvolving film.

Sling Blade (1996)

Outstanding - my personal #1 film of all time.

[10/10 · 29 June 2012]

When I first watched "Sling Blade" nearly ten years ago, I knew nothing about it. I assumed it was part of the Wesley Snipes vampire series. I was completely unprepared for what became my #1 favourite movie of all-time.

Simply put, "Sling Blade" is the story of mentally-impaired Karl who gets released from "the nervous hospital" after 30 years, having committed a double murder as a young boy. He is taken in by an extremely trusting woman Linda and her young son Frank, who Karl befriends. This all takes place in what is surely one of the hillbilliest reddest-neck towns in Arkansas.

To describe the story as big-hearted doesn't suffice, this story is ALL heart. In addition to the warm engaging characters of Karl, Linda and Frank, there's Linda's friend Vaughn, a closeted smalltown gay guy, and even the minor characters like doctors and mechanics are drawn as compassionate caring characters. This movie can remind you of all the good things human beings are capable of, even in dark circumstances.

It's far from easy-viewing. Linda's abusive boyfriend Doyle is violent, manipulative, and threatens to destroy the lives of Linda and Frank. Doyle is so hateful that it's almost reluctant that I say Dwight Yoakam probably gives the second best performance. He makes your skin crawl, without ever being over the top, it's totally realistic. There are moments that are hard to watch (nothing graphic) and yet you can't turn your eyes away.

To me, this film has everything - drama, comedy, horror, love, thrills, emotion - and yet it is surprisingly simple. I have gone back and watched this movie over and over and I never tire of it. Even after a decade, it remains my #1 film of all time, and I wished more people watched it.

New Year's Eve (2011)

What's to complain about?

[7/10 · 22 April 2012]

There are many, many story lines in this film - basically separate stories, because they only intersect at moments that feel very laboured and engineered.

So I'm treating the movie like a bunch of different films and will review each one accordingly. I characterise the story lines into three categories: the AWFUL, the BARELY WATCHABLE and the NOT AWFUL.

THE "AWFUL": Double Oscar winner Robert De Niro lies in a hospital bed dying. Oscar winner Halle Berry sits at his bedside. They chew through their lines, just thinking of the paycheck. In a separate storyline, another double Oscar winner Hilary Swank plays a woman with absolutely no personality, who has to make sure the ball drops at midnight. She gives a "moving" speech about how we should all be nice to each other, but who cares?

THE "BARELY WATCHABLE": Jessica Biel and Seth Meyers are a pregnant couple competing with another couple to win $25,000 to have the first baby of 2012. A feeble concept but redeemed ever-so-slightly but some good lines and the actors' talents. Meanwhile, two sets of would-be couples with MASSIVE age differences start out annoying each other but slowly soften: Ashton Kutcher and Lea Michele - and Katherine Heigl and Jon Bon Jovi. There is spontaneous singing, like a Glee episode. And in an extremely mind-numbing plot, Sarah Jessica Parker's daughter Abigail Breslin runs away from home to go to a New Years party.

THE "NOT AWFUL": Somehow, Michelle Pfeiffer is convincing as a dowdy middle-aged woman, "daring to hope" that things will change in the New Year. Zac Efron is the bicycle courier who helps her achieve all her New Years resolutions. It's not a great storyline; not even "good", but Pfeiffer is the ONLY person in this whole film who I felt had any personality.

I went into this film knowing exactly what it was: a celebrity-stuffed commercial product, lacking much depth or dimension. And it delivered magnificently.

Hugo (2011)

A beautiful but woeful, empty film

[1/10 · 9 March 2012]

At the beginning of Hugo, we're promised a charming tale of a boy living in a train station who forms a relationship with a bitter old toymaker and his intrepid goddaughter.

Oh, and there's a robot-toy.

For the first half of the film, there is NO mention of films or film-making. Well into the film the boy and girl talk about films. He is aghast that she has never seen a film, so they go watch one.

It is like the director dropped what he was doing with "Hugo" and just suddenly decided that he wanted to make a movie about movies. From there, it becomes a self-indulgent tale about a filmmaker.

Oh, and Jude Law has a one-scene cameo as the boy's father. The scene suggests that there's a mystery to be unfolded later on - but on that storyline we're left stone cold.

Visually, every moment of this film is outstanding, maybe even magical - but substantively it is not about anything at all.

Midnight in Paris (2011)

Gimmicky and meaningless!

[1/10 · 21 October 2011]

"Midnight in Paris" was a massive disappointment.

The film is full of beautiful shots of Paris and perhaps this may distract viewers from the fact that this movie is void of any real meaning whatsoever.

The 'story' is about a writer Gil (Owen Wilson) who wants to stay in Paris and write. His fiancé (Rachel McAdams) and her family are wealthy superficial socialites. Every night, Gil 'time travels' back to Paris 1920s where he meets all his artistic and literary idols. This is little more than an exercising in name-dropping and talent-wasting. He meets a non-superficial woman (Marion Cotillard).

I can't spoil the storyline because nothing happens. In what I suppose could be called the 'climax', the character Gil himself experiences what he describes as a "minor epiphany". It barely even qualifies minor. It's meaningless.

The 'characters' are woefully under-developed, completely two-dimensional.

Woody himself as described his film-making style as "lazy" and I have to say this is Woody at his laziest.

Scream 3 (2000)

The worst SCREAM film - but not a completely bad film

[10/10 · 14 October 2011]

The premise of Scream 3 is excellent - it's about the filming of the film-within-the-film, Stab 3, with the cast being picked off in the order that they die in Stab 3. Great idea. Even greater is the pairing of Gale Weathers (Courtney Cox) and the actress playing Gale Weathers in Stab 3 (Parker Posey).

So why doesn't this film quite get off the ground? Firstly, because of its many, many locations. Police stations, studio offices, film sets, star's homes - but by far the worst location is where the finale takes place: the executive's mansion. It's your archetypal 'haunted' house - secret doorways, chambers, basements full of props, and so on.

Which brings me to my second point. There's a 'supernatural' element to this film that breaks completely with the tone of the Scream films. The ghost of Sidney's mother features, much to the film's detriment.

Thirdly - without spoiling it - the 'revelation' at the end of who was behind the murders. This is by far the most disappointing ending in any whodunit slasher. This is perhaps because none of the characters are developed particularly well, so we can't bring ourselves to care.

Scream 4 (2011)

Very intelligent, very scary, and very hilarious

[10/10 · 14 April 2011]

Scream 4 should have been terrible - after all, Scream 2 was only "ok" and Scream 3 was a disaster. But Scream 4 is a very good movie, both as part of the franchise, but also as a stand alone.

It is far more self-referential than you would expect. Barely a scene passes without the characters referencing movie conventions. But it does so in what I think is an intelligent way. And most importantly (for our enjoyment) Scream 4 makes fun of itself before we can get there. Just when you start to roll your eyes, they roll their eyes.

But it also stands as a good slasher flick - perhaps the LEAST slasher-y of the lot so far (it can't be everything after all) but there are plenty of jump-in-your-seat moments.

The combination of old generation cast and new generation is actually seamless, again lots of self-referencing about that too.

The highlights are too many to name - but the opening of the movie will have you laughing far harder than you'd have expected to.

Overall, Scream 4 is excellent.

Saw 3D (2010)

EXTREMELY disappointing - here's why (no spoilers)

[1/10 · 29 October 2010]

There are no spoilers here because the film makes no sense.

The plot is a complete mess. There seem to be three main story lines running: ONE, Hoffman wants to track down Jill to get his revenge for what she did to him at the end of VI. It's a boring premise but at least it makes sense.

TWO, Bobby Dagen is put a multi-roomed trap for profiting from the Jigsaw legacy. We've seen this before, but at least there are some satisfyingly gory moments. Suffering and despair abound.

THREE, a cop from Internal Affairs is being led on a wild goose chase by Hoffman. Now, I am at a complete loss to explain WHY this storyline was included. It makes no sense whatsoever. The cop has some history with Hoffman? Hoffman is testing the cop? I've seen it and I still can't figure out what the hell happened.

Having created a sprawling incomprehensible mess, the story has no choice but to implode, leaving this viewer with a metaphorical black hole of two hours wasted.

For hardcore fans, the last few minutes will be satisfying - if only they had turned those last few minutes into an entire film.

Halloween II (2009)

Good for a sequel.

[10/10 · 19 September 2010]

I thought this film was good, despite all the negative reviews I've found.

The "Halloween" franchise has always been about insane indestructible Michael Myers hunting down Laurie Strode. In this movie, precisely that happens. Expectations fulfilled.

But in this movie, Rob Zombie creates a world of carnivalesque violence. He also creates (in my opinion) a believable character in Laurie Strode, if not a likable one. Following the events of the first film, Laurie now suffers nightmares and crippling anxiety attacks.

YES there are some clichés but on the whole, I found this film to be a great slasher flick with the unique atmosphere of insanity that Rob Zombie creates. I think it is very telling that the girls are dressed up as Rocky Horror characters for the second half of the film.

In conclusion: this is one of the best horror sequels I've ever seen.

Friends: The One Where Joey Tells Rachel (2002) Season 8, Episode 16

Not the funniest

[6/10 · 2 August 2010]

This episode has two story lines: one light and one heavy.

The "lighter" storyline involves Phoebe believing, to Chandler's dismay, that she has found Monica's soul-mate. This is a fun idea, with some solid laughs, but not an abundance.

The "heavier" storyline involves Joey first telling Ross that he's in love with Rachel. This then leads into a heavy scene with Ross and Joey discussing this, with a weak running joke about this weird green drink they are having. Then Joey tells Rachel how he feels, more heaviness, few laughs.

One of the least funny episodes.

Alice in Wonderland (I) (2010)

Clever.

[10/10 · 6 March 2010]

This movie version of "Alice is Wonderland" is surprisingly intelligent.

It takes the main elements of the classical story, set 13 years later against the tyrannical rule of Red Queen, thus setting up the archetypal "quest" story cleverly incorporating the book's Jabberwocky poem.

Bookending this "quest" is the 'real world' story of a Victorian girl coming of age and gaining the courage to take control of her life against social pressures and expectations.

In terms of literary ingenuity I think it's terrific - provided you're familiar with (and a big fan of) the original Alice story.

Funny Games (1997)

Education, not entertainment

[9/10 · 3 March 2009]

I didn't want to keep watching but I found myself sort of riveted to the spot, unable to act - the same situation as the victims in this film. The film left me feeling disgusting and badly shaken, at the story itself, at the fact that I had sat there and watched the whole damn thing, at how real the suffering was. It's like how people slow down to look at a car crash, but it's not just a bit of blood, it's two whole hours.

One of the most effective parts of the film to me was how Paul (the "leader" of the pack) continued to manipulate and psychologically "corner" all the characters, constantly making it sound like his actions were perfectly reasonable, and the victims were the ones at fault.

The most ineffective part in my opinion was the Paul's interaction with the audience. Quite frankly, it just seemed silly, and the film would have managed to get its point across without that. It reminded me that it was just a film, and was the only way I could detach from it.

But for what it is, it is outstanding film. It takes a very important place in the history of cinema violence.

Heat (1995)

Painfully nineties, but really just painful.

[1/10 · 20 February 2009]

This film has long passed its use-by date.

On paper, it looks like the best film ever. Al Pacino and Robert De Niro - and IMDb has it safely on its Top 250 - but it is a terrible film. And least of all because of Ashley Judd's multi-coloured leggings.

There is nothing to this film. For its length, you'd expect the depth and density of a masterpiece like "The Departed". Instead, what you get is all the character saying the word "heat" over and over, and some very dated action sequences. There are an infinite number of clichés in this film.

Clearly it was amazing when it came out in cinemas and people have been clinging to it ever since.

Gran Torino (2008)

An awful letdown.

[1/10 · 10 February 2009]

"Gran Torino" was a big letdown. I have loved every Eastwood movie, even "The Bridges of Madison County". This made "Gran Torino" an even bigger disappointment to me.

The storyline (as told on Wikipedia) is quite riveting. The direction is adequate, if a bit sporadic. But the characters, the dialogue, the unfolding of the plot, the abysmal (yes, abysmal) acting - it wrecked the film. I have never heard more wooden dialogue than what was coming from Sue. I have never seen a more pathetic, forced hissy fit than from Tao. And in this film, Clint Eastwood's "soft growl" is nothing short of laughable.

Eastwood should stop trying to make 2 films in one year. "Changeling" is incredible; "Gran Torino" is weak. "Letters to Iwo Jima" was incredible; "Flags of our Fathers" was weak.

How this film became so highly rated is beyond me. Perhaps the heroic ending tricked people into forgetting how awful it had all been up until then?

Scenes from a Mall (1991)

Two stars and not much else

[2/10 · 27 January 2009]

Aside from the greatness that is inherent in its two stars, Bette and Woody, this movie is depressingly bad. I watched it with my mouth open in disgust at how awful it is.

Woody's little stump of a ponytail made every shot positively nauseating. As did the fluorescent lighting (that's what you get for setting an entire movie in a mall in 1991). The "sex scenes" (one in the bedroom and one in a cinema with other people shushing them) are probably the most sickening I have ever seen - and completely unnecessary.

The plot is pointless - a perfect marriage breaks up then gets back together then breaks up then gets back together then they bicker ... etc. It is nauseating also, the way the characters pendulum between emotions.

Do not watch this movie. Not even out of curiosity.

Snakes on a Plane (2006)

It is what it is!

[10/10 · 20 January 2009]

You watch a movie called "Snakes on a Plane", and you get snakes. On a plane. I can't understand how this has such a low rating! Anyone who sits down to watch this movie knows what they're getting into! Never has a title summed up the plot, the character, or the quality of a film like "Snakes on a Plane".

The plot is as good as you'd expect. One of the characters even acknowledges how far-fetched the storyline is: "What kind of crazy plan is that?" The acting is good. The jokes are good. The gore is GREAT.

I don't need to recommend this movie - you should know by the title whether it's your kind of movie or not.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Overkill.

[1/10 · 8 January 2009]

Months after seeing this film, all I can remember about it was Heath Ledger as the Joker.

Everything else melts away: I can't remember anything about growly Batman or lame Two Face. I remember that there were way too many characters played by elderly veteran actors. And Maggie Gyllenhaal looks like someone's elbow.

And it felt like the film was ending so many times, only to launch into a whole new chapter. I know this is how comic books are written but the sprawling structure doesn't work as well in a film. The storyline was messy.

Only one star: the Joker.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008)

always a sucker for woody

[10/10 · 8 January 2009]

I loved this film before I even saw it.

It is Woody being simple yet effective. You can watch it as a lighthearted story about the romantic trials and tribulations of two American girls in Spain, OR you can do what I do, and read in all sorts of Woody nuances.

Scarlett Johansson is refreshingly non-stereotypical as the "sluttier" one. Rebecca Hall is the "neurotic" one. Javier Bardem is HOT as the exotic Spaniard cliché. Penelope Cruz's character (a beautiful crazy artist) comes in halfway through, giving the story a much needed bang.

This film made me go all warm and giggly inside, a feeling that only Woody can invoke.