Reviews

4 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
A fantastic adaptation! A mini analysis of my issues with the last two eps
22 January 2024
Warning: Spoilers
I was very wary when I heard there was going to be an adaptation for BSU as it is one of my favourite books and it was a real friend through a difficult time. But this is for the most part a fantastic adaptation, the casting is absolutely perfect, Simon Baker has never been better, the kids are sensational, the blending of genres was done remarkably well, magic realism is a tough thing to pull off!

I thought I might talk a bit about why a few people are not loving the time jump and why I think they may have missed a small step from the adaptation. I feel adaptations need to become their own thing and not be too stale, but I also feel sometimes adapters lose the importance of something in the book they may have missed.

For me the issue isn't with the time jump, it happens in the book so I think in a sense they had to follow it. For me what I feel could've been threaded through the whole thing is the importance of writing and Eli's gift for writing. Writing is his gift and is going to be his escape from this life surrounded by crime, a way through trauma.

We saw Eli write the letters to Alex Bermuda, his father surrounded by books, teachers mention he was very intelligent, but I felt they could've emphasised this further. Instead the focus was very much on relationships and getting his mum out of prison. But I feel there was always a self-determinism to Eli, to find a life for himself, not just save everyone else, and so when we jump to him being older, it feels like the plot lingers on his mother getting out of prison and the other machinations with Teddy, rather than his determination to become a writer and become a journalist. I felt in the book he wasn't going to the paper to become a writer just to necessarily to still work out the mysteries of the case it was to satisfy a longing in himself. I found the transition of young Eli to older Eli a bit strange with the dream sequence and coming out of the water and the sudden sexualisation of such an innocent character we've deeply loved. I felt the emerging in to manhood metaphor a bit laboured.

I felt what the adaptation could've done is follow more of Eli's efforts to become his own person, become a journalist and its less his desire to solve the past and it's like the past hasn't escaped him yet, he hasn't killed it off. Unfortunately for the me the weakest part of the book was the same here where Dalton went a little Hollywood at the end, with the clocktower sequence and the relationship with Caitlyn Spies, for all he had pushed away from it for the most part.

I felt one other difference for me from the book was the image of Tytus Broz. This could've been me and my projection but in the book I felt they played up a lot more of a sense of this almost pseudo mayor of Brisbane, the man of the people who everyone loved, but who was secretly pulling the puppet strings of everything. You could tell Broz was a crook from the start here. I wonder if they did this on purpose? That in some ways wanted to move away from that twist in the book because it may have seemed obvious on film? I guess for me what I might have liked to have seen is play up the almost Joh Bjelke-Petersen nature of that character (former Queensland premiere once loved found to be later quite corrupt), that even the people you think you can trust are no good. I felt in the book when Eli goes to meet Broz that's where it suddenly lands for him, he realises he had an intuition years ago, whereas here we play that Eli knows he's bad right from the start.

For all this being said I don't want to spoil the fact for the most part they did a brilliant job and like I said sometimes you need to shift emphasis in the adaptation to make it work for the screen which was in this circumstance the redemption of a family.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Herald the new Wunderkind.
3 February 2001
I saw "Requiem for a Dream" yesterday and it has barely left my mind for five minutes since. First of all may I say it's very positive to see the standard of reaction to this movie in the other user comments, I expected a fair amount of backlash.

This movie is a piece of living, breathing cinema. It is new, fresh, daring and okay I'm being hyperbolic - but what I'm saying is that this movie whether you liked it or not, will produce a reaction from you. The audience I watched it with were drawn in by the characters and the flashes of humour and then ultimately disturbed and left shaken. I have never heard so many genuinely shocked audible reactions from an audience.

So how does director and co-writer Aronofsky achieve this? He achieve it by using every tool available to a film. Writing: a heartbreakingly juxtaposed story of a mother and a son and their dreams which are ultimately shattered. A very original take on drugs, which ultimately places it within a wider social context than many other films that rarely take on the greater implications.

Acting: Ellen Burstyn, Jared Leto, Marlon Wayans and Jennifer Connelly all deliver top rate performances. Burstyn in particular is amazing, it is one the most heartbreaking performances you will ever see. It is wonderful to see a role written for a middle age person with depth and edge, and performed so electrically. How Burstyn lost and will lose to Julia Roberts (for Erin Brokovich) is beyond me. Roberts delivers a fine performance and probably the ultimate of her career, but I think you have to award someone for the actual quality of the performance not in terms of some career achievement. I think it is up to us lovers of this film and Burstyn's performance to keep campaigning, keep writing on the message boards so that hopefully some of the voters might see what the public want for a change. The distributors of "Requiem" cannot compete in terms of campaigning, but we can. Sorry I've gone of track again. In terms of the other performances they are all very good, it is particularly pleasing to see actors like Wayans break away from his usual screen persona and deliver a fine performance, it is a big risk for him and it paid off. Leto and Connelly also invest huge amounts, but if there is one criticism it is that the "you are the most beautiful girl in the world" scenes come off a little awkward.

Music: This has to be some of the best use of music in film. Clint Mansell again produces another fine off-centre score, beautifully offset by the work from the Kronos Quartet. Music and sound almost penetrates the whole film never letting you settle, so that when there is little sound it is very noticeable. It is also crucial to the end sequence. Mention also should be made about the TV show. The repetitive chants and exclamations, brought home for me the notion of television as the new religion, the TV show is made to seem like a religious fervor, and Christopher McDonald plays a very effective "Evangilist".

Cinematography: Washed out colours, Steadicam, warped angles, sped up, slowed down. Everything is put to use. Some of the most interesting camera work that has been seen for a long time. And who will ever forget the first shot of "winter", it is forever planted in my mind.

Editing: Well if the editing on this movie doesn't receive an Academy nomination they may as well stop the whole event. This has to be one of the best editing jobs EVER. Hollywood seems to give awards for seamless editing, well whoop-de-doo, how about using editing to enhance the movie, how about giving an award for daring, revolutionary editing. They won't and it's sad. P.S. They should congratulate the editor for having such a strong stomach to be able to edit this movie.

Direction: What can I say? Think about how one man can bring all these ingredients I've mentioned and more, together to give what is one the most narratively and visually fulfilling movies you will ever see. The most effective thing that Aronofsky uses to keep the audience with the movie is pace and the withholding of shock. The movie gradually and gradually builds pace until the climax, this allows us to go into the minds of the characters as they gradually spiral out of control. The withholding of shock is also well used, because the audience is not distanced from the movie to early and when the director has them, then he shocks them. It is a great piece of film making.

"Requiem" does have its faults. However, they are more than compensated by the standard of film making, the risks taken. I was left emotionally drained at the end of this movie, but also invigorated to see a new, exciting and original film.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Unique, moving, beautiful.
25 May 1999
"Honneamise no tsubasa" is clearly the masterpiece of Japanese anime. I was lucky enough to see this film for the first time at the cinema, and I feel for those of you who have only been able to see it on video. What you miss is the immaculate artistry of the animation: the detail, the complexity, the invention and most of all the beauty. The opening credits are up there amongst my favourites (Vertigo, Delicatessen) not because of any originality - the use of pictures in credits have been done before (Days of Heaven) - but more because of the use of Japanese water painting of these images. It is also the blending of these images with the right music which makes the credits so exquisite. But also the great thing about this movie for all of us, is the wonderful story that is told. The use of a parallel earth in which the events occur is ingenius, it allows the story to remain in a sense inherently Japanese but also universal. See this film it is a gem
12 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Fabulous casting
6 May 1999
As an Australian there was nothing more pleasing than watching L.A. Confidential and seeing two fine Australian actors doing their best. Russel Crowe has been around for ages and has played a neo-nazi skinhead in Romper Stomper (the movie that was the inspiration for the recent American History X), a jackeroo(something similar to a cowboy), a gay builder, also the pyscho computer creation in Virtuosity. It shows he has a huge range and is capable of the tough guy and also the soft guy both of these talents which were utilized superbly in this movie, in fact not being biased in any way I thought he gave easily the best performance of the movie and was unlucky not to see more recognition for this.

There was also Guy Pearce who greatly shocked me in this movie, his acting credits include the soapie Neighbours and then a dud movie Dating the Enemy, as well as his role in The Adventures of Priscilla Queen of the Desert. Up until L.A. I had been less than impressed by his acting but in this movie he just blew me away. In particular the interrogation scene which was one of the highlights of the movie.

The reason why I enjoyed this movie is that they chose actors who suited their roles from the book, and did not change them to make a star vehicle (for example the gross corruption of the book Just Cause when turned into a movie which was destroyed by grave casting errors as well as some terrible direction), it gave this film an integrity that is so lacking from most Hollywood movies
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed