THE MEN WHO STARE AT GOATS (2009) - Grant Heslov

Based on the book by Jon Ronson, The Men Who Stare At Goats tells the true story of the US Army’s attempt to create a battalion of paranormal spies who use remote viewing to complete missions for the army. When Journalist Bob Wilton meets Lyn Cassady, he seems to have stumbled upon the story of a lifetime. Cassady was the golden child of The First Earth Battalion, an experimental battalion set up by Bill Django, a Vietnam Vet. But when a fork-bender named Larry Hooper is drafted into the battalion, he destroys it from within. Is Cassady telling the truth, or will Wilton find out he’s following a madman?



Military affairs make for savage satire. You only have to look at Dr. Strangelove to see that. The Men Who Stare At Goats seemed like the kind of film that would fully exploit this fact. And in some respects, it is a pretty good satire. But it’s a little too tame to be all that memorable. It has a great premise, and some really funny moments. The cast, which includes two actors who delivered brilliant comic performances under the Coen Brothers are all pretty solid. George Clooney (who also produces), Jeff Bridges, Kevin Spacey all deliver performances we’ve come to expect from these actors. And even Ewan McGreggor (apart from another dodgy American accent) is better than usual. But I expected something more. It’s entertaining, but ultimately forgettable.


7/10

THE FANTASTIC MR. FOX (2009) - Wes Anderson

If you grew up any time in the last 30 years, you should know the story of Roald Dahl’s The Fantastic Mr. Fox. But for those of you who spent your youth under a rock, three farmers, Boggis, Bunce and Bean want to evict (and kill) Mr. Fox for stealing chickens, geese and apple cider belonging to the three farmers. They try to dig Mr. Fox out of the home he has set up underneath a tree, and in the process also disturb the other animals living there. Mr. Fox, feeling responsible for the other animals’ lives, strives to set up new lives for himself, his family and his animal friends.



This film had a winning formula. A well-loved and widely known story. The idiosyncratic style of Wes Anderson applied to stop-motion animation. And yet somewhere, something didn’t connect. There are brilliant, and truly original aspects to the film. The animation is gorgeous. The story, while transported to the US from England is close-enough to the original story with a few tweaks that can be forgiven. The voice acting (Clooney again, Meryl Streep, Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman) is lively when it needs to be but retains that droll nature we’ve come to expect from Anderson’s films. But something isn’t right with the film. It just didn’t do it for me for some reason. Maybe on another viewing, the film would click with me. But despite my love for Anderson’s films, I just think he missed the mark here. It’s good. It’s just not as great as it should have been.


7/10

FUNNY PEOPLE (2009) - Judd Apatow

Judd Apatow’s films could never have been accused of being poignant. Sure, there’s a lot more to them than the average comedy. The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked up certainly contained more substance than all the Wayans Brothers and Scary/Epic/Date Movies combined. But none of his films have been as personal as his latest, Funny People. And a great deal of this is down to the fact that the film is more of a drama than a comedy. Despite starring Adam Sandler and Seth Rogen.

Sandler stars as George Simmons, a former stand-up comedian and now star of empty-headed vacuous family movies. He’s got money, success and fame. He gets any woman he wants. And he has a terminal blood disease. After finding out he’s not got long, Simmons goes off the rails. And he wants to return to stand-up. After gate crashing a stand-up gig, he meets Ira Wright, a struggling stand-up comedian. He hires Wright to be his assistant and introduces him to the world of a successful Hollywood star. But Simmons begins to resent the trappings of his success and wants to get back the one thing he never held onto. His ex-fiancee, Laura.



It’s clear from the get go that this film is different to Apatow’s other films. It’s far more personal. To a degree that the opening titles are scenes Apatow shot of Sandler when they were roommates and yet to hit the limelight. Apatow was a stand-up comedian at one point, and he injects a lot of his own personality into the characters in the film. It also contains quite a few Apatow regulars, including his wife, Leslie Mann, Rogen, and Jonah Hill. So it’s clear the writer/director wants this film to be something from the heart.

But is it good? Yeah, I suppose it is. It’s not as funny as The 40 Year Old Virgin. In fact, it is more of a drama than a comedy. In certain respects, Funny People shares a lot in common with Kevin Smith’s Chasing Amy. Both writer/directors are known more for their comedies. And both films are the most personal of their work. The dialogue in Funny People is as strong as anything Apatow’s done, and is where the comedy of the film lies. The actors are very familiar with each other and this helps the witticisms and delivery. So this isn’t a situational comedy.

The performances are for the most part, pretty excellent. Adam Sandler’s always done his best work when he isn’t doing mad-cap films. In fact, his best role was in Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punch-Drunk Love, a dark drama-comedy. So Sandler’s on fine form here. I’m sure he and Simmons have a lot in common, so Sandler could draw a lot on his own experiences for the role. Seth Rogen, while not playing a slacker here, seems to fit into the mould he’s forged in Apatow’s films. And while the Jonah Hill, Leslie Mann and Jason Schwartzman are all great in the film, the show is stolen by Eric Bana who appears at the end of the film. Bana is the only actor who isn’t playing a ‘funny’ character. But he slightly overplays the character, and gets the most laughs. That’s not a criticism as I’m sure that’s what Bana was going for.



The great criticism of the film is it’s length. The film is essentially two films tied together, and as such pushes the running time to a whopping two and a half hours. There could have been two films made of the story. And this is somewhat of a drawback for the film. But it’s perfectly entertaining none the less, and Apatow’s most grown-up film.


7/10

THE HURT LOCKER (2009) - Kathryn Bigelow

The Iraq war is a sensitive subject in... well, every medium. It’s a shady conflict with no clear and definable enemy and despite it being in the news nearly every day, it’s a subject filmmakers are hesitant to touch. The majority of films that deal with the war concentrate on the effects of the conflict on the soldiers or the families and friends of soldiers once they have returned from the conflict. Few films actually deal with the war on a day to day basis. But now we have The Hurt Locker, a film that deals with a bomb disposal unit, stationed in Iraq in 2004. Does it shed any new light on the war?

SSgt. William James newly appointed to an Explosive Ordinance Disposal unit in Iraq. He’s seen his fair share of duty in Afghanistan and has disposed of countless explosives. Iraq is littered with Improvised Explosive Devices. James is teamed up with Sgt. JT Sanborn and Spc. Owen Eldridge, soldiers just counting down the days until they go home. They hate Iraq and fear for their own safety. But James is reckless, and doesn’t care for his own safety, nor that of his fellow soldiers. And his recklessness puts him at odds with Sanborn and Eldridge.



Well, The Hurt Locker has arrived on a veritable tidal wave of positive reviews and unrelenting praise. And as I walked out of the cinema I couldn’t help but ask... why? Before the film began, I was sure I was walking into something that would... blow me out of my seat. Heh. But I was very underwhelmed. The first hour of the film had me gazing through the screen as the film failed to grab me by the balls and force my attention on the screen. It seems to follow the consensus that films that deal with the Iraq war are just not that very good.

Now don’t get me wrong. There are some great moments in the film. A lot has been made of the tension that runs throughout the film. And there are some extremely tense moments in the film. But overall, I felt the film just fell a little flat in places and didn’t really hold my attention for long enough. And at a running time of 131 minutes, that is a problem. To the film’s credit, it doesn’t present the three central characters with an enemy they have to hunt for. This would have been cliché. Instead, their enemy is boredom and the situation they’re in. There are themes of heroism, fear of death and brotherhood in the film, but these aren’t touched upon nearly as much as they should have been. Maybe the canvas is too big, or maybe the writing wasn’t strong enough, but I felt there should have been more.

The performances, on the other hand, are excellent. The three central actors, Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie and Brian Geraghty all play their roles with conviction. None of the characters are too similar, and they all have their demons to battle with. Despite glossing over a lot of these, other than for Renner’s James, the actors do their best with what they have and are convincing. There are cameos from heavyweights like Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce and David Morse, but these cameos are fleeting and don’t give the actors much to work with.



Kathryn Bigelow is most famous for Point Break, a film that is basically testosterone on screen. And there’s no shortage of it in The Hurt Locker. But in no way is The Hurt Locker a comparable film to Point Break. It is far more serious. As it should be. Bigelow’s direction is sketchy. At moments, she builds the tension brilliantly. And she does get great performances from her actors. But her cinematic flourishes aren’t anything incredibly innovative. And the very last shot of the film is shockingly misjudged and out of place within the context of the rest of the film.

Overall, The Hurt Locker isn’t a bad film. It’s just a little better than average. It’s saved by it’s actors. And yet the first great Iraq war film hasn’t been made. It certainly isn’t this film. A far better document of the war is the television mini-series, Generation Kill. Obviously, being a mini-series, it has a greater canvas to work on. But many great individual films have been made about World War 2, and wars don’t get bigger nor more complex than that. Ignore the hype and maybe you won’t be disappointed like I was. It’s good, but not great. I just hoped for more from The Hurt Locker.


7/10

INGLORIOUS BASTERDS (2009) - Quentin Tarantino

Whenever Quentin Tarantino releases a film, the nerd world goes hay-wire. Some fanboys are so inherently loyal to the man that no matter how bad a film he releases, they will sing it’s praises, even if they have no idea as to why they’re praising it. To be honest, I haven’t really liked a Tarantino film since Jackie Brown. The films he released before this were classics. The films after Jackie Brown are far from classics. But the Tarantino dream project that is Inglorious Basterds finally hits the screens after over a decade of speculation. Worth the wait?

France. 1944. The war is going badly for the Germans. D-Day is coming. For some reason that is never explained, Lt. Aldo Raine has gathered eight Jewish-American soldiers to undertake a mission in Nazi-occupied France. They are to kill, and scalp one hundred Nazi soldiers. The strategic value of this mission is moot. It makes for pure pulp story-telling. Meanwhile, a young Jewish-French girl named Shoshanna, who escaped certain death at the hands of the Jew-hunter Col. Hans Landa has come into possession of a cinema in Paris. It is here that she and the Basterds will cross paths on the night of the premiere of Josef Goebbels’ latest propaganda film, Nation’s Pride. A night that could provide the revenge Soshanna has sought for the murder of her family and a prime opportunity for the Basterds to end the war.



The name Inglorious Basterds has been bandied about Hollywood for well over a decade. It was Tarantino’s oft-mentioned dream project, and sounded like something only the nerdiest of film fans could hope to see. After all this time, it’s a little bit of an anti-climax to see Inglorious Basterds. It’s not a bad film, don’t get me wrong. It’s very enjoyable. But like Avatar is in danger of suffering come December, the film never lives up to the hype. Inglorious Basterds after all has a number of incredibly large flaws. And a great many of them are down to the casting.

Firstly, Eli Roth. I know he and Tarantino are friends. That’s great, and good for them. But casting as Donny Donowitz, the Bear Jew was a bad mistake. The guy cannot act in any way. Every line he delivers is worse than primary-school nativity play over-acting. It is a prime example of why directors cast their characters and don’t just pick randomers on the street to flesh out their characters. Secondly, and most damningly, Brad Pitt. For some reason, as the film progresses, Pitt just plays Aldo Raine as Marlon Brando in the Godfather, but drunk and lairy. It’s less a performance than a series of bad acting decisions strung together with a ludicrous southern accent. However, having said that, he does have the best line in the film. One word. Which had the entire audience doubled-over with laughter. So fair dues to him for that. And finally, Mike Myers. What in the name of all that is good and pure was Quentin Tarantino thinking when he cast Myers as a British general. It’s hands-down the worst piece of out-of-place casting I’ve ever seen. You literally expect Myers to burst into Austin Powers mode at any moment he’s on screen. It’s shockingly bad and something I wish I could purge from my memory.



Having said all that, the rest of the cast is quite excellent. The entire film is stolen by Christoph Waltz as Col. Hans Landa. He’s the embodiment of grinning menace. A sort of Cheshire cat with a luger and a hatred for enemies of the state. His performance is fantastic, creepy and the best thing in the film. Also well worth mentioning are Michael Fassbender as the British soldier, Archie Hilcox, Diane Kruger as German actress and spy, Bridget Von Hammersmark and Mélanie Laurent as Shoshanna Dreyfuss. When these characters are on-screen it takes the stink off the performances of those listed above.

Tarantino’s script is both excellent, and a problem at the same time. When it’s good, it’s very, very, very good. When it’s bad it’s either dull or baffling. The film is split into chapters. Some work, some don’t. The opening chapter, Once Upon A Time In Nazi-Occupied France is a masterpiece in tension and drama. It’s Tarantino at his best. No obscure pop-culture ramblings. Just unbelievable tension, reminiscent of any of the great moments in Pulp Fiction. It’s stunningly good. And then you have comedy moments that fall flat on their faces. You’ve the Basterds. I sincerely hope you’re not going to see these guys kick-ass. It doesn’t happen. In fact, most of them appear for a moment on screen and aren’t heard of again. It’s a shame. I had half-hoped for a Dirty Dozen-esque men on a mission type film done by Tarantino. That’s the fanboy in me struggling to break free. But this doesn’t happen. Like the last few of Tarantino’s films (and the next few if IMDB is to be believed), this is a female-revenge movie primarily. And while that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it’s getting a bit predictable at this stage.



So after all this waiting, Inglorious Basterds is great, but at the same time, a disappointment for a number of reasons. Ludicrous casting, a sometimes genius, sometimes weak script, and an ending that is so far beyond ridiculous that you just buy it for what it is all adds up to an enjoyable if not classic experience. You get the feeling the film is slightly rushed. It starts so well, has some fantastic scenes that merely involve characters talking to each other and the tension is thick. But it’s let-down by the fact that Tarantino is never quite reigned-in. It happened to a terrible degree with George Lucas and Star Wars. Thankfully, though, Quentin Tarantino can actually write something half-decent. And despite how good the film is, it’s just disappointing to think of what Inglorious Basterds could have been.


7/10

PUBLIC ENEMIES (2009) - Michael Mann

I’ll start this off by saying this- Michael Mann is one of my all-time favourite directors. He consistently makes quality, intelligent films, and even his weaker films are streets ahead of most of the competition. I really enjoyed Miami Vice. Despite the negative reaction to it from some people, it’s still a very good film. And Heat is one of the greatest heist films ever. So, in a summer that has so far proven absolutely abysmal, the prospect of a new Mann film had me pretty excited. Public Enemies brings together two great modern actors playing out the story of 1930’s bank robber, John Dillinger.

It’s the 1930’s, and the depression has hit America hard. A wave of crime spreads across America and the criminals are becoming celebrities in their own rights. The leading name amongst the bank-robbers is John Dillinger. J Edgar Hoover is struggling to create the Federal Bureau of Investigation in order to investigate crime across the United States. His primary goal is to take down Dillinger. In order to do this, Hoover gives the task to Melvin Purvis, a young agent who has just taken down Pretty Boy Floyd, another notorious bank robber. Dillinger wants one last job in order to disappear off the map with his girlfriend, Billie Frechette. And Purvis is determined to bring the criminal to justice. At any cost.



There are similarities that can be drawn between Heat and Public Enemies. Both films focus on two men, from different sides of the track. One a master criminal, one a lawman. Neither film paints the criminal as a simple bad guy. And both films have kick-ass gun fights in them. However, Public Enemies is by far the weaker film for a number of reasons. The main problem with Public Enemies is that none of the characters in the film are explored enough. The film is a presentation of facts that misses that very important to film detail, character development. Perhaps it was Mann’s desire to stick to the facts, but the lack of character development unfortunately leaves the film without much in the way of emotional impact.

Mann has recently decided to make the move to digital filmmaking. His first major foray into digital came with Collateral, a contemporary thriller about a hitman. He shot Miami Vice in digital. And in both those films, the digital worked very well with the story. Both were glossy films set in modern day, and the realism that digital brings complemented the stories. However, it for some reason fails in Public Enemies. At times, the digital works very well. At other times, it is a little to jarring. In one particular shoot-out, set at night, the action jumps from a wood, to inside a hotel. While outside, the digital works. However, when we cut to inside, the film looks like it was shot by somebody with a digital camcorder. It’s moments like this that confuse the viewer. And while the scene is action packed, it still takes you out of the film momentarily.



One thing that’s great to see is Johnny Depp finally acting again. After the rubbish pantomime performances in the appalling Pirates of the Caribbean series, Depp finally goes back to what he does best, acting. He’s cast very well as Dillinger. Dillinger was somewhat of a celebrity in his time, so it makes sense to have one of the most famous actors of our time playing him. While the character could have had more depth to him, Depp takes what he’s given and makes the most of it. Which is something that can’t be said for Christian Bale. Don’t get me wrong, Bale has delivered some great performances. But I’m beginning to have my concerns about his acting. After Terminator Salvation, and quite honestly, a flat performance here, I hope that it’s just the scripts that are letting him down. He’s not terrible in Public Enemies, but he’s just not as good as you’d hope.
Marion Cotillard, however, probably delivers the strongest performance in the film. Again, there’s not much for her to do. And after her lengthy enough introduction, she disappears for a great deal of the film. But in the second half of the film, in one scene in particular, she steals the show.

Public Enemies isn’t the great film I’d hoped it would be. But it isn’t terrible either. When measured against the likes of Heat, The Insider, Manhunter and even Miami Vice, it’s not close to Mann’s best. However, Michael Mann’s weaker films are still far better than other filmmakers’ best. And after weeks of what can only be described as shit, it’s nice to have a film that isn’t ludicrously bad. 2009 is proving to be a stinker of a year. But Public Enemies is one of the better films so far.


7/10

FROST/NIXON (2008) - Ron Howard

True life often makes for better drama than fiction. Had somebody written the story of Richard Nixon and his fall from the most powerful political office in the world, few may believe it. But the truth was an unbelievable web of lies and deception with the president becoming one of the most hated people in public life. Despite overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing, Nixon refused to admit he broke the law. After President Geral Ford gave Nixon a free pass, TV presenter David Frost took it upon himself to give Nixon the trial he escaped. Frost/Nixon, Ron Howard’s new film shows us the events that led up to the now famous interview between Richard Nixon and David Frost.

It’s 1977. Three years have passed since Nixon resigned from the office of the President of the United States after the Watergate scandal. People are pissed that Nixon was given a pardon for any wrongdoings by Gerald Ford. David Frost is a television presenter looking for a challenge. He’s not a major player in television, presenting an Australian chat show after a failed attempt to break the US market. Frost sees an opportunity when he approaches the ex-president with a proposal to do a number of interviews. Nixon is interested in one thing only. Money. Frost wants to further his career. But no network wants to touch the interview. And those working with Frost want to put Nixon on trial. As the interview approaches, a number of factors threaten not only the production, but also the integrity of all involved.



Frost/Nixon is the filmed version of the play by Peter Morgan. Michael Sheen and Frank Langella continue the roles they made their own on stage. And it’s pretty clear from the start that both actors are incredibly comfortable in the roles. The problem that can exist when an actor plays a real-life person is that the performance can focus on mannerisms and then become little more than a caricature of the person. But thankfully, that problem doesn’t exist here. Sure, both Sheen and Langella have the little quirks that make both Frost and Nixon such memorable characters. But once these little mannerisms are dealt with, the actors are able to concentrate on motivations and performance rather than imitation.

It doesn’t hurt that Sheen and Langella are joined by four great performances by Sam Rockwell, Kevin Bacon, Oliver Platt and Matthew MacFadyen. They play characters that are integral to the interview, but will never be recognised for it. While Sheen and in particular, Langella are the two actors given the most attention, the support they receive from these actors is vitally important. And none of the actors let anybody down.



There is in the film, a great emphasis placed on the power of television and the close-up. And in one pivotal moment, this is hammered home. Howard’s direction resists the need to be flashy or extravagant. After all, this is the adaptation of a play, and as such, doesn’t need to be anything more than a camera trained on actors. And for this reason, the film is successful. I will say however, that until the actual interview begins to unfold on screen, the film does tend to drag a little. A lot of emphasis is placed on how hard it is to get funding, and the problems that arise when people with different agendas clash. And in this section, I did find myself willing the film to get to the money shot, so to speak. However, once the actual interview arrives on screen, things get very very interesting.

Frost/Nixon is a very interesting look at an interview that has become a part of popular culture. It’s also a detailed examination of the power of television. The performances are rock solid, and Langella in particular is brilliant as Richard Nixon. He refrains from caricature and thus is very compelling to watch. Is it one of the best films of 2008? I don’t think so. But it is still a very solid film.


7/10

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

YES MAN (2008) - Peyton Reed

Jim Carrey is one of those actors that polarises audiences. Some hate his frantic limb-flailing schtick, while others love him for it. I have to say, I fall into the later category. But I think Carrey’s done his best work when playing against type in films such as Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, The Majestic or Man On The Moon. I haven’t really enjoyed a Carrey film since Lemony Snicket’s A Series Of Unfortunate Events. But this month Carrey’s back to comedy with Yes Man.

Carl Allen’s a pretty miserable guy. His wife left him. He can’t get a girlfriend. He hates his job. And his relationship with his friends is at breaking point. His misery comes from his unwillingness to get out of his routine and try something new. Allen runs into an old friend who has changed his life due to a self-improvement program that teaches that ‘yes’ is the key to happiness in life. Allen is challenged by Yes guru Terrence Bundley to say yes to every single request presented to him. At first Allen is dubious, but as he agrees to everything asked of him, he starts to see a real change in his life.



This is a Carrey comedy that doesn’t fit in with the mad-cap films he’s done like Dumb And Dumber or The Cable Guy. It doesn’t really feel like a Carrey vehicle. Instead, it’s a romantic comedy (but not really) that features Carrey. Which will be a relief for some. Sure, there are moments of classic Carrey. One particularly funny scene features a very drunk Allen getting into a fight with another bar patron. But overall, this is a comedy that really could have starred Carrey, Steve Carrell or Jack Black. It’s pretty generic. But the writing is pretty good so it’s not awful.



Carrey is his usual great self. Carrey’s a very good actor. He proved he has the chops in his more serious roles. When he’s required to be dull and dour, he can pull it off just as much as the more mad-cap moments. What makes his character work is that Carrey and Zooey Deschanel have a lot of chemistry. She plays the love interest, Allison, a woman who is every bit the opposite of Allen. Deschanel was awful earlier in the year in The Happening. But that really seems to be down to M. Night Shyamalan’s direction. Here, she’s a lot better. One of the highlights is Rhys Darby who plays Allen’s boss, Norman. Darby’s one of the stars of HBO’s Flight Of The Conchords. And while Norman is essentially a more optimistic version of Murray Hewitt, Darby’s character from the show, it’s still great to see Darby get some big screen exposure.

Yes Man isn’t the greatest comedy in the world. And it certainly isn’t Carrey’s best. But it’s a funny movie with a quite optimistic and uplifting message. Probably more suited for DVD than cinema, Yes Man is entertaining, funny and unoffensive.


7/10

LAKEVIEW TERRACE (2008) - Neil LaBute

Neil LaBute was once known as a director who made gritty, misogynistic films that definitely weren’t family fare. His films were dark and menacing. So when it came to an unnecessary remake of the classic Wicker Man, LaBute seemed like a choice that may bring that menace to the film. Unfortunately for all involved, The Wicker Man remake was a complete disaster, widely derided for it’s unintentionally hilarious moments and ridiculously over the top performance by Nicholas Cage. LaBute needed a film to redeem him, and thus, we have Lakeview Terrace.

Chris and Lisa Mattson are a recently married couple. They buy a house in a part of Los Angeles that is well-off but infamous for the Rodney King incident of 1991. The couple move in next door to Abel Turner, widower and father of two. Turner is a Los Angeles cop by day and neighbourhood watchman and less than ideal neighbour by night. Turner is incensed when he oversees Chris and Lisa having sex in their backyard pool. He’s not angry at their antics. It’s the fact that Chris and Lisa are an interracial couple that causes his consternation. And so Turner embarks on a campaign of intimidation in an attempt to drive the couple away from the neighbourhood he has lived in for twenty years.



Lakeview Terrace could easily be seen as a pretty average thriller. The premise has been done before and is pretty familiar. However, the protagonists and their motivations are different here and that’s what sets the film apart from other similar films. In Lakeview Terrace, the antagonist is Samuel L. Jackson. And thus, the film raises questions that wouldn’t have been too easily derided had Turner been a white man. We now live in a world where the United States has it’s first elected black president, so Lakeview Terrace’s timing couldn’t be better. It’s just a shame for the film that it isn’t a widely-seen film. The film plays on the notion of white man’s guilt, which really emasculates Chris’ character, played by Patrick Wilson. He’s almost helpless to defend his home against Turner, who sees his anger not as intimidation but as righteous indignation.

The film draws it’s strength from a wonderfully creepy performance by Samuel L. Jackson. When it comes to roles, Jackson is bit like the man from Del Monte. He say yes... to literally every role. His performances can sometimes be flat and dull. But when a film requires more, Jackson can deliver. And he does so here. Turner’s definitely not someone I’d like to mess with. He’s creepy, intimidating and cold, and has the muscle to back it up. Jackson literally seethes with anger and looks like he’s ready to explode at any given moment. Compared to Turner, Wilson’s Chris Mattson is even meeker than he would seem against a regular guy. But Wilson’s got the meekness maintained at the right level. You know he’ll stand up to you. However, he won’t get violent. It’s something that Turner exploits throughout the entire film. Kerry Washington plays Lisa Mattson. It’s not an exceptional role, but Washington does enough to play the wife who loves her husband, but still recognises the difference in their cultures.



The film isn’t perfect. In the last act, it does resort to the conclusion you’d expect from a thriller like this. It’s a shame because you hope throughout the film that it won’t go down that road. Having said that, it’s not a bad thriller. Had it been another actor in the role of Abel Turner, I don’t think the film would have worked. Jackson does elevate it to something more than it should be. For LaBute, it almost makes up for the incredible disaster that was The Wicker Man. Almost.


7/10

THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL (2008) - Scott Derrickson

I saw the original The Day The Earth Stood Still years ago. I was a young teenager, and while I had the whole ‘that looks so fake’ attitude, I still enjoyed the film for what it was. The story was great and it had that whole 1950’s innocent attitude to it. It’s a sci-fi classic and remains so to this day. So why remake it? Why indeed. With the disappointing invasion movies of the reprehensible Independence Day and the strictly average War Of The Worlds, it seems that the invasion movie really isn't that viable an idea. But that’s what we have in Scott Derrickson’s remake, released this week.

Helen Benson is a molecular biologist. One evening, she is called upon by the US government to come to a gathering of great scientific minds. Being an emergency, she is told nothing. However, it seems that something on the outskirts of the solar system is on a collision course with the Earth. The scientists are drafted to organise the aftermath of the impact. The unfortunate thing for the scientists, and the citizens of Manhattan (the impact site) is, there is only 78 minutes to impact. The object doesn’t smash into the Earth, but lands in Central Park. From the object, a humanoid emerges. He is shot, grabbed and experimented on in order to see what he wants. But this stranger is a harbinger of doom. Humans have damaged the earth almost to the point of no return and the aliens are here to wipe out the human race and save the Earth from her most advanced species. Benson does her best to convince Klaatu not to destroy the human race, but the time of destruction is rapidly approaching.



The original The Day The Earth Stood Still is a pretty iconic movie. The image of the robotic Gort standing guard over the ship he and Klaatu arrived on Earth in is a classic sci-fi image. So why bother remaking a film which is essentially a classic? There are some ideas in the updated version that are relevant to today. The film raises some points about the environment that are relevant to today. We’re poisoning the Earth and wiping out species at an alarming rate. Yet if even something as seemingly irrelevant as the bee were wiped out, we’d die off as a species. But could the world survive without humans? Absolutely. So we’re privileged to have this planet as our home. This is the message that is peppered throughout the screenplay.

Central to the film is the role of Klaatu. This character is an alien living in a human body, existing in a world that to it, is alien. To achieve this unworldly performance, Derrickson cast the similarly alien-named Keanu Reeves to play Klaatu. And it’s a brilliant casting choice. Reeves, while never destined to achieve Lawrence Olivier-levels of acting prowess, does have a talent to play characters who are out of their comfort zone. Reeves proved this with The Matrix, where he was required to stand around looking like he was struggling to comprehend what’s going on around him. And he did it brilliantly. Here, he plays a character seemingly bored and unfazed by human beings. And this he yet again achieves without much effort. Jennifer Connelly does a serviceable job as Helen Benson. She leads Klaatu about the place and fears for her adopted son. Her son, played by Will Smith’s son, Jaden Smith, is by far the most irritating element of the film. He gets everyone into trouble and yet prances about on his high-horse demanding death to the outsider. I found myself praying for his untimely and painfully drawn-out death. Kathy Bates and John Cleese also pop up for two roles that are essentially cameos, playing conscience of the military and thoughtful wisdom, respectfully.



The special effects in the film are suitably special. Gort, who this time is G.O.R.T., looks pretty spiffy. Less clunky than his 1950’s counterpart, and technologically organic for the 21st Century. The film’s trailer is cut as a big special-effects blockbuster, but this is something of a misnomer. There are only a few big sequences. This is more of a drama than a blockbuster, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Some will want more action. But it would seem contrived.

While The Day The Earth Stood Still won’t set the world on fire, it’s a pretty entertaining 104 minutes. While purists will balk at the desecration of their classic, this remake isn’t as terrible as some remakes in the past have been (Hallowe’en and Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, I’m looking at you), but it’s nowhere near as good a remake as John Carpenter’s The Thing. The strength of the film really comes from Keanu Reeves who’s performance is ironically devoid of emotion. Sure, it’s throw-away. But the Day The Earth Stood Still is at least worth a look if you’ve nothing else left to see at the cinema.


7/10

W. (2008) - Oliver Stone

History was made in the last month for two reasons. The first saw the election of the first black man to the seat of President of the United States. The other reason was the beginning of the end of George W. Bush’s tenure as president. He remains the most controversial president since Nixon and arguably one of the worst presidents in US history. But this isn’t a political discussion. It’s a review of Oliver Stone’s biopic of the man, W.

W. is released at a strange time. It’s too far into the Bush’s last term to have any impact on his legacy. And it’s too soon to fully judge Bush’s impact. However, the film attempts to understand Bush’s motivations by looking at some of the key moments in his life that made him the man he is now. Starting while Bush is in college, we trace his life, through the many jobs he held until he became governor of Texas, helped get his father, George H.W. Bush elected as President of the United States and then W.’s own election to the same office.



It’d be very easy to label George W. Bush as an idiot and fool who was, and is a front for big oil and similar shady interests. And while I’m sure that’s not entirely inaccurate, there’s no denying that it takes some brains to get to be president. It doesn’t just happen. And despite these assumptions that a lot of people have about Bush, Stone’s film is somewhat gentle on the guy. The easy thing would have been to make a complete farcical comedy about Bush. There’s enough footage of Bush gaffing to make a pretty funny comedy that is steeped in reality. But Oliver Stone instead looks at Bush as a man who’s constantly living in the shadow of his father. It’s somewhere he despises being. He wants to out-do his father while making his individual mark on the world. And in an attempt at being fair to Bush, you can’t help feeling that there’s also something missing from the film.

The performances are pretty good for the most part. Josh Brolin is excellent as George W. Bush. Stone’s film creates a Bush with a lot of charisma, and Brolin carries this across very well. It’s difficult to watch a film like this without seeing some of the performances as charicatures. And is some cases, this is true. Thandie Newton’s Condaleeza Rice does seem like it stepped out of a Saturday Night Live sketch. Yet in other cases, particularly Richard Dreyfuss as Dick Chaney and James Cromwell as George H.W. Bush, the performances are spot on. But over-all, the performances are generally pretty entertaining.



There are some funny moments in W. A few of the famous Bush-isms are featured, although they are shifted in context to fit in with the drama of the film. One particularly outstanding scene is set in the ‘war room’ where Bush and his cabinet discuss the strategy of Iraq before the conflict begins. It’s like a cross between high-drama and Dr. Strangelove-esqe satire. As a document and comment of Bush’s time as President of the United States, Stone’s Bush isn’t that type of film. Subjects like that are more suited to documentary. But as a character drama, W. is quite entertaining. It does, however, feel unfinished. Had the film been made five, or even a year from now, I’d imagine it would have been quite different in many ways.


7/10

APPALOOSA (2008) - Ed Harris

It seems yonks since 3:10 To Yuma and The Assassination of Jesse James By The Coward Robert Ford came out. It was only last year. 2007 was the year of the western. That Ed Harris’ Appaloosa comes well after the release of these films gives is a good thing for the western. If you were to put Appaloosa up against these films, it would be seen as the weakest of the three. It’s a noble effort. But due to some problems with the script and editing, Appaloosa is ultimately a solid, but flawed film.

Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch arrive in the town of Appaloosa looking to bring law and order to a town that seems to have lost it’s way. The town is suffering due to the threat of Randall Bragg, a violent rancher with men who are less interested in law than they are in rape, theft and murder. Cole’s methods are stern. But he sees them as the only way to harmony. When Allison French arrives in the town, Cole sees the potential for a stable life. Something he has never had. But the threat from Bragg, and Allison’s less than reliable loyalty to her man threaten the town, and Cole’s dream of a happy life.



Appaloosa has a lot of strengths. The performances, from a pretty strong cast, are almost spot on. Ed Harris, who directs as well as stars as Virgil Cole is just as strong as he’s been in any film. What’s strange about Appaloosa is the light-heartedness that runs through some of it. Maybe we’ve become accustomed to heavy-handed westerns in everything from Unforgiven to There Will Be Blood. And it would seem that this light-heartedness is entirely intentional. Which isn’t a bad thing. When the film starts it’s shooting (and this is a western. I wanna see plenty of gunfights) it’s pretty good. But unfortunately, for a film that clocks 2 hours, these moments are rare and brief.

The problem with Appaloosa lies in the writing and editing. Harris, and co-writer Robert Knott have plenty to say about love, friendship and all the other things that buddy-movie, love and westerns usually say. However, in a script that could use a lot of trimming, these themes get somewhat lost. The film feels like a mish-mash of ideas that are a little all over the place. Scenes are either too long or too brief with cuts that feel like they’re made just before some more dialogue is spoken. I know that sounds like a contradiction, but there are moments where you feel a little lingering on characters or landscape would be great. And then there are moments that leave you going ‘wait, go back to that!’



As I said, the film is full of great performances. Harris seems to get all the comedy. And he mixes that with the dour nature of Cole pretty well. Viggo Mortensen is, as usual, brilliant. I dunno if directors keep perfectly casting him in roles, or that Mortensen has the uncanny ability of putting himself in any role and make it look like it was written for him. Maybe it’s both. Regardless, he’s yet again the best thing in the movie. Jeremy Irons again proves he makes a great villain, being both loathsome and likable at the same time. And it’s great to see Lance Henriksen get a meaty role for once. The guy deserves more screen time. Renee Zellweger yet again forces the question ‘can Renee Zellweger act?’ There are moments when she’s perfectly fine in her role. Yet there are other times when she just comes across as if she’s been at the stash of marijuana I’m sure one of the grips has stashed away on set.

As I said, Appaloosa isn’t a bad film. It’s just a flawed one. A film that needed a little more focus and direction. Harris does a good job. Just not a great one. The performances are for the most part, excellent. And there are some great moments. It’s just a shame the film wasn’t tidied up a little more and polished.


7/10