X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE (2009) - Gavin Hood

Another month, another superhero movie. It’s getting a little tedious at this stage. The big names, Batman, Superman, Spiderman, X-Men have all been done. And yet, in an attempt to squeeze another few pennies out of a dying genre, the big studious continue to wheel out these movies. Sure, some are entertaining. Some are even genre-defying. And then, you have films like X-Men Origins: Wolverine. An attempt to set up a franchise spin-off from another franchise. Seriously, Fox should just rename these films Cash Cow: Wolverine. Gavin Hood attempts to give us the mysterious back-story to X-Men’s most iconic character, Wolverine.

We all know Wolverine. The nigh-invulnerable, adamantium-boned, claw-slasher. As the anti-hero of the X-Men, he is inevitably the most popular character. But his past is shrouded in mystery. He’s a product of the Weapon X program. Where he’s come from is unknown. But in this film, which is essentially a 2-hour flashback, the missing pieces are put into place. We see kiddie Wolverine, born sometime in the mid-nineteenth century. After a disaster involving his father, Wolverine and his half-brother, Victor, also known as Sabretooth wander the earth, getting involved in the American Civil War, both World Wars, Vietnam until their both recruited into a special ops program run by William Stryker. After a crisis of consciousness, Wolverine leaves the program to lead a quiet life with his girlfriend. But things don’t quite work out when Sabretooth returns to kill Wolverine’s gal and draw him out of hiding. Wolverine agrees to take part in Stryker’s Weapon X program in return for a chance at revenge.



I liked X-Men. I liked X-Men 2. The third film was a dreadful piece of shit, thanks to Fox’s interference in production and a hack director in Brett Ratner. So hopes were high that this film would restore some of the magic that made the first two X-Men films very enjoyable. Oh, how misplaced our hopes were. To put it simply, X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a complete disaster of a film. At every level of the production, the film is a failure. The script is a complete and utter mess. Characters are never fully realised or fleshed out. For a film that explores what makes established characters act and think the way they do, there is very little character development. From the moment the opening titles began, I knew the film was in trouble. But the script is not the only problem.

The production itself is quite shockingly poor. The CGI, which is an essential part of these big-budget special effects fests, is jaw-droppingly bad. At moments, I found myself really asking if what I was watching was a complete film or had the cinema I was in been slipped a copy of the workprint that was leaked to the world. I am not kidding when I say that the CGI in this film is some of the worst I’ve ever seen. At one point, Wolverine is examining his newly adamantium-clad claws in a bathroom. The effects are so bad that the claws look like cartoons. In other moments, they float over Wolverine’s hands where they’re supposed to be protruding from his hand. It’s incredibly sloppy.

The direction is piss-poor. Gavin Hood may have some small amount talent for doing drama, as seen in Rendition. However, if X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a showcase of his abilities for doing big budget, high concept actioners, he shouldn’t be allowed behind the camera again. Scenes are badly composed, action sequences are horribly shot, and the editing is all over the place. At one point, Wolverine knocks Gabit out with a punch. Literally seconds later, Gambit is sprinting across a roof and leaps off, only to land back where he’d just been punched, without any explanation as to how or why he got back onto the roof in the first place. That’s just one is a long laundry-list of badly executed scenes.



The acting in the film isn’t the worst part of the production. Hugh Jackman is pretty comfortable in the Wolverine role, and when he has things to do, he does them well. Otherwise, he wanders about looking dour and waiting for things to explode behind him. It’s unfortunate for Jackman that he’s left with a god-awful script to work with. Liev Schreiber, also a good actor, is given very little to do as Sabretooth. Turn up, growl and leap about. Not exactly a challenging role. Everyone else is barely worth mentioning. Except for Will I Am. Note to future filmmakers- rappers do not make good actors.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is terrible. It is a terrible, awful, disaster of a film. The number of awful superhero movies vastly outnumbers the good. Maybe it’s time to cease the genre and allow maybe one or two superhero movies come along every few years. Maybe when the scripts are polished, the productions are planned properly and the studios allow creatives to control the making of the film. X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a prime example of a badly executed attempt to cash in on a popular property. It’s just a shame further films from this dying franchise are already in production.


3/10

AUSTRALIA (2008) - Baz Luhrmann

If Baz Luhrmann will be remembered for one thing, it will be for the striking visual style he injects into his films. While Luhrmann has only so far directed four films, he has become known as a director of big, epic, romantic films. Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge! were highly successful films that pitted two people from opposite backgrounds who find love despite the odds. Not much has changed with Luhrmann’s latest, an epic tale of romance set against the backdrop of World War 2 and how it affected Darwin and the nation of Australia.

Lady Sarah Ashley is married to a wealthy landowner who is living in Australia looking after his cattle ranch. Lady Ashley travels to Australia to oversee the sale of Faraway Downs. She is met in Darwin by Drover, a tough Australia cattle drover who will escort Lady Ashley to Faraway Downs. When Lady Ashley arrives at Faraway Downs, she finds her husband murdered, supposedly at the hands of an Aboriginal man named King George. Her land is under threat from Neil Fletcher, a man once employed by her husband. Fletcher wants the land for himself. Lady Ashley has little choice but to drive 2000 cattle across the Northern Territory to Darwin. She takes with her a half-Aboriginal boy named Nullah and enlists the help of a reluctant Drover.



When I was sitting watching the opening scenes of Australia, I found myself watching a film I wasn’t really prepared for. I had prepared myself for something more... serious. But having thought about it, the film fits in exactly with Baz Luhrmann’s style. While the film deals with serious matters, the film feels like it belongs to another era. It feels like it’s a film that was made in the forties or fifties, but with today’s technology and budgets. Which is what I guess Luhrmann was going for. The film does have the feel of a John Huston epic. There are huge, open vistas, a rich romantic plot and clearly defined heroes and villains. There’s no room for ambiguity here.

However, Australia is quite a flawed epic. While Romeo + Juliet and in particular, Moulin Rouge! were quite solid films, Australia falls down a few areas. It’s a long film. Very long. And in areas, you can’t help feeling that the film would have benefited from a bit of editing in the script stage. One thing that Luhrmann could really have cut back on is cliché. The film lathers on the schmaltz very thickly and thus, falls into a few obvious cheese traps. From the opening few scenes, you pretty much know exactly where the story is going, and surprises are few and far between. Having said that, the film doesn’t suffer really badly from these faults. If you can overlook these problems, the epic nature of the film will suck you in.



Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman are cast as the two lovers from opposite worlds, Lady Ashley and the man known only as Drover. Each of them are suitably different that it’s believable they’re from opposite worlds. Nicole Kidman’s not an actress I’d rush to see. It seems the woman has no soul. It was hard to see her as a romantic lead since her last few films have required her to be cold. However here, she’s a lot easier to warm to. Jackman, on the other hand, once again delivers a great performance. While the film doesn’t require the depth Jackman has shown in The Prestige or The Fountain, Jackman can play tough and he does so here. But the real heart and soul of the film lies in the character Nullah, played by newcomer, Brandon Walters. Walters is the incredibly optimistic and playful Aboriginal child who brings and ties Lady Ashley and Drover together. It’s a great performance from the kid and is the soul of the film.

While Australia is flawed, it’s still very entertaining. It’s huge, epic and hopelessly romantic. And while some of the special effects are a little poor, this is due to the constraints of making a film outside the Hollywood studio system. We’re too used to spit and polish and poor story, but Australia overcomes these minor flaws to remain faithful to it’s goal. Australia looks gorgeous and it’s full of compelling if somewhat clichéd characters. It’s not quite as good as Luhrmann’s other work. But it’s still great to watch.


7/10

Claws are out...

After the awful conclusion to the X-Men trilogy, the franchise seemed to be heading in the wrong direction. However, taking the character everybody wanted to see, the powers that be saw fit to give Logan his own film. Thus, we have X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The film gives us the back story to Wolverine, glimpses of which were seen in the X-Men films. The hotly-awaited film hits screens next summer.

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE HD

THE FOUNTAIN (2006) - Darren Aronofsky

Director Darren Aronofsky set about making The Fountain after he completed Requiem For A Dream in 2000. The film went into production in Australia with Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett in the central roles of Tom and Izzi, but soon shut down after Pitt left over creative differences with Aronofsky, and the studio pulled out of backing the film. Finally, in 2004, Aronofsky began filming The Fountain once again, with a stripped-down script and actors Hugh Jackman and Rachel Weisz in the main roles.

The Fountain takes place in three time periods. The three stories weave together and deal with death and eternal life. In 16th-Century Spain, we find Queen Isabel who is close to being executed by the Inquisition for crimes of heresy. She is obsessed with finding the Tree of Life, the tree from Eden which is believed to be located in South America. She sends her faithful conquistador, Tomas to find the tree, and to bring back to her the sap, which will give her eternal life. In modern day America, Dr. Tom Creo is a neurologist who is searching for a cure for brain tumors. He is obsessed with finding the cure, as his wife, Izzi is dying from a brain tumor. The cure may be found from the sap of a tree recently discovered in South America. And in the year 2500, we find Tom again, travelling through space towards a dying star, with only a tree for company. He is escorting the tree to the dying star where it is believed, Izzy's spirit may be reborn.



When written down like that, The Fountain sounds like it wont work as a film at all. Certainly, interweaving three distinctly different styles that would suit each story could become a major problem. Yet in the hands of Darren Aronofsky, this isn't so. Aronofsky has created one of the most unique and fascinating films of recent times. On the face of it, The Fountain is about the need to accept death as a part of life. Izzi knows full well she isn't likely to survive her tumor. She has accepted it, and is quite upbeat, yet her husband is completely unwilling to let go of the chance of saving her life. To the point where he actually misses out on spending time with her. On another level, the film is also about the nature of humanity. If we lived forever, would we lose a sense of who we are? And in this respect, The Fountain is kind of like a modern day 2001: A Space Odyssey. Certainly, the sci-fi element, as well as the jumps in time could be compared to Kubrick's masterpiece.



That isn't to say The Fountain isn't without it's flaws. There are moments where Aronofsky loses focus on the message of the film in favour of the visual side. However, Aronofsky is one of the best technical directors in the industry, and the imagery is incredible. The space scenes, while certainly very very far out, are absolutely stunning, the approach quite unlike anything you'll have seen before. And the cinematography, from long-time Aronofsky collaborator, Matthew Libatique is as good if not better than Requiem For A Dream.
Hugh Jackman delivers a career-best performance as the three versions of Tom Creo. He captures the obsession of both his work, and the love for his wife and queen perfectly, in a role that was criminally overlooked at awards time. Rachel Weisz is also brilliant as both Queen Isabel and Izzi Creo. Refined and elegant as the Queen, and wonderfully upbeat as Izzi. Ellen Burstyn also appears as Tom's boss, and is, as always, brilliant.

The Fountain divided critics and audiences alike. And it's not surprising it did so. In these days of pirates and superheroes, a film like The Fountain is going to seriously test the average Joe Multiplex. However, thank christ for Aronofsky, who has taken a helluva chance making this film. It is without a doubt one of the most individual and unique works of the last while. It's more of a painting or a poem then a movie. What's for sure is, for better or worse, this is a film that stays in the mind long after you've seen it.

9/10