Change Your Image
saintcecilia
Reviews
Pandemic (2007)
About as inventive as the telephone book
I should start by confessing that I didn't last the distance on this movie - I bailed when we got to the traditional gooey sentimental bits - but I can't resist a good disaster movie. This was not one of them.
The start was not promising. Note to producers - if you want to show someone just coming out of the water from surfing, make sure there's something more than a six inch break in the background. There's actually very little surfing in far North Queensland because the Great Barrier Reef stops the swell from coming in. Second note to producers - there is no way you could get from far North Queensland to Sydney by car in 8 hours.
After that, things got a little better. A bit of character establishment on the plane (so we care about them later when they keel over) though I do wonder why there only seemed to be one stewardess. The landing, unloading of body and passengers and the setting up of the ERC was all low key and convincing. The hovering media rang true but I cannot believe that the Head of the CDC would be so incompetent at handling them.
Then it started to get gooey and silly. Gangsters being broken out with no security to be seen. Nieces having to take taxis and thus getting the virus because career-oriented mothers and aunts can't spare the time to pick her up (and can I say that the niece got to the coughing up blood stage remarkably fast). Touching farewells between FBI colleagues - "Hey, you're going to die (maybe he didn't), it's been nice knowing you."
That was when I gave a less than touching farewell to this movie.
Thumbsucker (2005)
Could have, should have been better
I was really looking forward to seeing this film on cable after I saw Lou Taylor Pucci's stellar turn as a poker prodigy in an episode of "Law and Order - Criminal Intent". Anyone who can (almost) upstage Vincent D'Onofrio is worth seeing. And the addition of D'Onofrio in the film, as well as Tilda Swinton, whose work I have enjoyed ever since "Caravaggio", made this film sound like a winner. The fact that Keanu Reeves was also in the cast wasn't a disincentive either.
So why did I find it so disappointing? Maybe I expected too much but all the lead characters were playing "ordinary" so hard they were almost sonambulistic on occasion. Justin's character seemed to be little more than a focus for everyone else's obsessions - his mother wanted him to be a friend, not a son, his father wanted him to be more outgoing but kept ruffling his hair like Justin was six years old and didn't want to be called "Dad", so he really didn't want Justin as a son either.
The scenes dealing with ADD drug (ab)use were right on point. But Justin felt better on the drug so why was he so easily discouraged from taking it? "Three molecules away from speed". Well, water is two atoms away from oxygen, what's your point? Justin's character at that point should have been able to deflect the comment, but, of course, the script needed him to give up the ADD drugs so he did.
Then there's the issue of anatomy. No matter how good the actor, his physical presence exists as much in the film as in real life. If you met someone like D'Onofrio, with his height and build, he would have an impact on you and your response, and those of everyone else he met, would affect him and how he feels and reacts. He is playing a man who (if I read the scene right) used an injury to justify giving up football to be with the woman he loved. And Swinton certainly looks like the woman you would give up your dream for, but she didn't play it that way. They seemed determined not to show any passion, intensity or even anger which would have existed between them. Very disappointing - like watching a couple of Ferraris popping down to the shops for a carton of milk.
Never mind, Keanu Reeves' character was great fun and demonstrates the dangers of amateur psychotherapy. And Benjamin Bratt was great in the scenes where he was playing his real character, not his TV character. And I hope to be able to stop wincing every time I think of his last scene some time soon.
All in all, this could have been a ripper of a film, with bits of chewed scenery flying in all directions. I would have loved to see D'Onofrio, Swinton and Pucci in a knock-down, drag- out scene about the failure of their parenting - that would be something to treasure. And, if you don't think that would have been an accurate picture of life for a seventeen year old in the suburbs with possible ADD and maybe OCD (and any other acronym you care to add), well, you need to get out more.
Dawn Anna (2005)
Can the scriptwriters spell "hagiography"?
First, I would like to say that Debra Winger's performance is superb. Having had a relative undergo brain surgery and then rehab, I know that Ms Winger got it all so right it was almost painful to watch.
And the last section was excellent (not in terms of what took place) but it showed what it's like to be a bystander/victim, to be suddenly caught up in events that you can't understand and all you can do is wait and hope. It also showed the shortcomings of live TV, with the reporter repeating the same words over and over again - not conveying any information, just intent on avoiding dead air. The coverage of London subway bombings was the same, with an endless loop of firemen in their HazMat gear and a distant shot of the destroyed bus.
So what didn't I like? Well, it's more what wasn't there. I know it's hard making a film about real people who have access to real defamation lawyers if they're so minded. I just couldn't believe that four teenagers and a single mother, living in cramped conditions with limited finances, never once screamed at each other or stomped off and slammed doors or stayed out too late or got drunk or any of the things teenagers do. The five actors playing the children did an excellent job but there was a lack of conflict, thus a lack of drama.
And why is the film so coy about the whereabouts of the father (or fathers) of the children? I assume that, if Ms Anna had been widowed, that would have been mentioned, just adding to the tragedy. So either she's divorced (at least once) or she was an unwed mother. Either way, why not tell us? It would just have added to the sense of her courage and stamina that she managed to raise four children on her own.
Oh, and the scene where all the people line up to give Ms Anna their sick leave? Maybe it really happened that way but I doubt it. How did all those people take the time off simultaneously to hand over their forms? Who was minding the store?
The fact is, ordinary people can be heroes and still be human. Maybe Ms Anna really is as she was portrayed in this film, but the film would have meant more if she and the other characters had been allowed to be, well, human.
The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert (1994)
Not as good as it ought to be
"Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" is always being trotted out as a masterpiece of Australian cinema. I found it quite disappointing. The lead actors are great - Terence Stamp is aging beautifully, Guy Pearce should do more comedy instead of the dour roles he chooses and I've been a fan of Hugo Weaving since I saw him play Oberon eons ago. The cinematography is great, but if you've ever been to the Australian outback, you'd know that the air is so clear and the light so brilliant that they could have shot it on the movie equivalent of a Box Brownie and it still would have looked spectacular.
So what's my problem? Well, three things. First, there is not a sympathetic female character in the whole film. A woman who has to earn her living shooting ping pong balls out of her privates in a roadside pub deserves our sympathy. Tick's wife doesn't get much better treatment.
Second, the scene when they sing "I Will Survive" to a group of Aboriginals is offensive. To try to draw any sort of parallel between the struggles of drag queens and trannies and the almost total destruction of Aboriginal culture, which is what I assume the scene is supposed to do, shows a level of historical understanding worthy of Paris Hilton.
Last of all, and the greatest defect of the film is that it just isn't funny enough. Did Stephan Elliott actually talk to any drag queens when writing the film? Anyone who knows a drag queen (or three or four) knows that most of them have rapier-like wits and they're not afraid to use them. Now, I can understand that a lot of drag queen banter probably would have got the film refused classification but Elliott should have been able to gather enough "fit for the kiddies" material to complete his film.
So, all in all, a waste of a good idea and a great cast.
Blessed (2004)
Bad film making is coming.
I decided to watch this film because it had an interesting cast and sounded like a remake of "Rosemary's Baby". A valid story line to copy - very archetypal in your Jungian sort of way - many women during pregnancy have, at some stage, felt like their body has been taken over by some force beyond their control. And, if the scriptwriters had just stuck to that, this probably would have been a routine but acceptable movie.
Instead, they seemed to have panicked and decided they needed more plot, lots more plot!! So we have the homophobic literary agent (based in New York - I don't think so) who decides to look a gift horse in the mouth by investigating the financial affairs of her client's new patron (maybe on Mars this would happen). All this frantic activity culminates in her being murdered for some reason that I missed.
Then there's the garbled story about an angel killing a saint (or a saint killing an angel), perfectly encapsulated in a really dreadful painting which we are supposed to believe would be on public display by David Hemmings' character, a supposed art connoisseur. There is an antique-looking tube full of blood (maybe) which belongs either the angel or the saint.
Then there's the fertility clinic which also does cloning as well. This causes great panic among several of the characters, even though there is no evidence that cloning was used. If they did, the ending shows that it clearly wasn't David Hemmings' character who was cloned.
Then there's the scene in the delivery room which is just plain dishonest. We see Heather Graham's abdomen and the scary little scaly things apparently in her womb ("Oh my God, I'm having an iguana!" Now there's a film.). The delivery nurse says "Oh my God!" and the scene fades to black. Next thing we see are the twins at their fourth birthday, looking quite normal if a bit subdued for a pair of four year old girls. So what was the nurse exclaiming over?
And then there's the mystery of what the girls are supposed to be. Are they the Devil, in which case, why are there two of them? Same question if they're supposed to be the angel. They are clearly something supernatural (as the demise of the annoying little boy at the party shows) but what? Angels don't go around melting four year old boys, do they?
Oh, and just to show that my attention really wandered watching this film, is David Hemmings' character Earl Sydney of Wherever, as in a member of the English aristocracy, or is he just Earl Sydney? If the latter, English boys of his age would not have been called Earl. Assuming the character is in fact English and it's not simply that Hemmings realised early on this film wasn't worth doing an accent for.
The Dukes of Hazzard (2005)
Funny, great driving and worth it for Willie Nelson alone
Normally, I don't write reviews of films I enjoyed - it's not as much fun as skewering bad films. But, when I read some of the negative comments, in particular those making the original TV show sound like Shakespeare crossed with the Bible, I just had to speak up. Now, maybe a different version of "The Dukes of Hazzard" screened in Australia than screened in the US but I doubt it. The show I remember (from the bits I watched) was as formulaic as a Roadrunner cartoon. And, as for providing some sort of moral example, why does no one in Hazzard take any action against an openly corrupt Sheriff and his criminal cohort, Boss Hogg? (Yes, I know that means there wouldn't be any story left but who would notice.) And for those who are so fond of a TV show nearly thirty years old, I recommend 1 Corinthians 13 verse 11.
Now for the film. I must admit I'm not much of an action film fan and I mainly watched "Dukes of Hazzard" to see how they had managed to stretch the story to feature film length. But I enjoyed it so much, I bought the DVD. The story hangs together with an up-to-date environmental theme and gets the "good ol' boys" (always makes me think of rednecks with nooses) out of Hazzard and into the real world, where the real world lets them know what it thinks of them, e.g. a Confederate flag is not an apolitical symbol. There are also a lot of good jokes along the way and Boss Hogg's fashion sense really did need to be called into question.
Re the cast, Johnny Knoxville is great (he deserves an Oscar for his deadpan delivery of the "armadillo" line alone). Seann William Scott is also good, though he has less to do, besides the driving but, judging from the out-takes, he probably deserves some sort of prize for being willing to work with Knoxville. The supporting cast is great - M.C. Gainey makes a suitably malevolent Rosco. Jessica - well, she didn't have much to do and she did the best she could. And Willie Nelson - who knew the man had such a repertoire of limericks?
And, of course, there's the driving, most of which is just breathtaking. The drift round the circle in Atlanta, the pulling up just short of the police car, Seann William Scott's effort with a hand-brake turn (as immortalised in the out-takes). And it was fascinating to watch how the experts put the stunts together and how often they go wrong, even with a skilled driver behind the wheel or after painstaking calculations as to height, speed etc and the General still lands on his nose. So, for anyone who thinks that this film encourages teenagers to speed and generally hoon around, show them the out-takes. If the experts don't get it right every time, why do you think you will? And, if they still persist, tell them to remember that the only laws you cannot break and get away with it are the laws of physics.
So, see this film. It's not great art and doesn't pretend to be, but it's fast-paced and the good guys win and the bad guys get what's coming to them. In the end, what more do you want?
Inside Man (2006)
Great cast and direction fighting against a truly bad script
First of all, I have to say I have never seen a Spike Lee film that I didn't like. There's always something interesting to look at or think about. I also always like to see Denzel Washington being directed by Lee - Lee seems to bring some quality out in him. In this film, it means Washington manages to make his rather drab character interesting. And Clive Owen was good. There was a lot of comment about how he spends most of the film with his face almost fully concealed. Well, as Johnny Knoxville has demonstrated, it is possible to convey emotion while in a HazMat suit (Jackass fans will know what I mean) and Owen does admirably here. And a brief mention for Chiwetel Ejiofor, whom I last saw in "Serenity" to great effect, who makes a fine job of what is basically an "I'm with him" role.
Then there's Jodie Foster and Christopher Plummer. Just goes to show even consummate professionals cannot turn a sow's ear into a silk purse. The scriptwriter had one brilliant idea, then he cobbled together bits and pieces to pad out the film.
If you think I've misjudged him, can you answer these questions for me? Why would Plummer's character have kept such damning material at all, let alone in a safety deposit box at his own bank? Didn't he have a safe at home? And how exactly was Foster's character supposed to deal with this situation "discreetly", with the villains holed up in the bank and the media and the public watching every move? Don't tell me nobody knew who she was and, believe me, police are the biggest gossips in the world. Now, if she had organised her own team of burglars to break in and quietly lift the documents while Clive Owen's bunch were looking the other way, that would have made some sense.
And, lastly, can we have a moratorium on Nazi subplots? The way things are going, the next generation may grow up, thinking the Holocaust is a mythical events and the Nazis no more real than Robin Hood or King Arthur. The Chief Rabbi of Britain wrote about the "instrumentality of the Holocaust" and how it is so often used as an shortcut to add a frisson of real evil to otherwise mundane situations. There are lots of other ways for rich men to be wicked without invoking the Holocaust. Scriptwriting is supposed to be creative - so create, imagine or just look at the front pages of the daily newspapers, if you must. More than enough material there without invoking an event which caused the suffering and death of millions of people.
10.5: Apocalypse (2006)
Laughable and oh so long
Just to add to the other comments, what happens to Amy's Secret Service men? One minute they're talking into their watches, next minute nowhere to be seen. And why on earth do both Dr Hills have to fly to the site of the explosion and give instructions to Army munitions guys about where to place the explosives? And, talking of Earth, where is the rest of it? If Accelerated Plate Movement is happening in the US, presumably it's happening around the world - but there's no mention at all - not even that the rift is also heading north to Canada - did anyone tell the Canadians? And, if the rest of the world isn't affected, surely the President would be receiving offers of help from somebody. To sum up, this film is far too long to enjoy as a disaster movie and it doesn't have anything else going for it. Too many plot lines (isn't anybody an orphan any more?), cheesy dialogue and the pseudo-artistic camera work. Kim Delaney is good value, as is Frank Langella, but I would have liked to have seen Randy Quaid in there somewhere and David Cubitt was killed off way too early (but that's just a personal preference on my part).